Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Blackburn

Mrs. Castle: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of rising unemployment and short time in Blackburn, not only in the textile industry but in engineering, he will reconsider his refusal to include Blackburn in a development area.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): I am glad to say that unemployment in Blackburn does not make it necessary to add that city to the list.

Mrs. Castle: Is the President aware that since his predecessor turned down Blackburn's application to be included in the North East Development Area some two or three years ago, unemployment in the town has risen to 5 per cent.; that that is a higher figure than that obtaining in some towns scheduled at that time; that in the town there are 2,500 wholly or temporarily unemployed, and that the figure is rising and that the Blackburn Town Council and the Trades and Labour Council have officially gone on record with this demand? Will he please give this matter serious consideration and not dismiss it in that lighthearted and inaccurate way?

Sir D. Eccles: According to my information, at the October count there were 1,500, or under 2·7 per cent., wholly unemployed. It is that percentage that we use when considering whether or not to add an area to the list under the new Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, and the figure on which we operate is 4 per cent.

Machine Tool Industry

Mr. Edelman: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the difficulties which the machine tool industry is experiencing, and to the consequent decline of employment; and what action he is taking in order to arrest this trend.

Sir D. Eccles: I am aware that order books for machine tools have declined from a very high level. The Measures adopted by the Government and announced in the debate on the Address should help this industry.

Mr. Edelman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, when dismissing the matter so lightly, that compared with last year, orders in hand have fallen by £25 million in value; that employment has gone down by 6,000, and that unemployment has gone up by 1,000? Is he further aware that many of the leading machine tool manufacturers have taken to acting as agents for foreign manufacturers of the most advanced type of transfer machinery, thus further producing unemployment in the industry? Will he take note of that?

Sir D. Eccles: I am aware of those facts. In time, investment will pick up, but at the moment both overseas orders and home orders are not as high as they were.

Registrars of Business Names

Mr. Page: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) how much is received annually by the Registry of Business Names in fees paid for registrations;
(2) what benefits are derived, by the public generally and in Government administration, from the operations of the Registry of Business Names;
(3) what is the annual cost of maintaining the Registry of Business Names.

Sir D. Eccles: There are two Registrars of Business Names, one in London and one in Edinburgh. The figures given in this reply cover both offices.
The annual receipts for registration foes averaged £9,200 over the three years ended 30th September, 1958.
The Registrars of Business Names have a statutory duty to register certain particulars which enable the public to


identify the owners of businesses which are carried on by persons, firms and companies trading in names other than their own. Some 40,000 inquiries are received each year. The Registrars also have certain duties under the Companies Act, 1947, in regard to the registration of business names which might be misleading.
The net cost of maintaining the Registries in the last financial year was some £27,000.

Mr. Page: Was not this Registry instituted in 1914 for the purpose of tracing aliens carrying on business in a different name, and has it not served all its purpose? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that it is now really serving any purpose to the public? Could not the purpose be achieved by enforcing the law that partners should put their names on the top of notepaper and other documents, so disclosing that they are carrying on business in another name, without this Registry?

Sir D. Eccles: The fact that there have been 40,000 inquiries a year tends to show that the public appreciate the Registries. I am told that possibly the main purpose for which they make inquiries today is to find the true name of a proprietor whom a creditor may wish to sue for a debt incurred under the business name.

Mr. Usborne: Can the Minister state the approximate percentage of firms trading under the names of the proprietors, which are not protected, and the number of firms trading under names that have been registered, and thus thought to be protected? I am inclined to think that if it does not matter to the first lot, it cannot matter a great deal to the latter lot.

Sir D. Eccles: I have not that information, and I think that it might be very difficult to get.

Imported Timber (Report)

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he has taken on the Report of the Monopolies Commission on Imported Timber, published two months ago, which revealed that the trade continues to operate a system of exclusive lists of traders in spite of undertakings given to his predecessor

Sir D. Eccles: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade met yesterday the Timber Trade Federation to hear its representations about the Commission's findings. I am considering his report.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is most important, where voluntary agreements and undertakings were given in this difficult branch of the law, that if they are broken or seem to be broken drastic action should follow?

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir.

Restrictive Practices Court (Cases)

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade why he has relinquished to the Registrar the power of deciding the order in which cases before the Restrictive Practices Court are to be taken.

Sir D. Eccles: I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the full explanation given in my Written Answer on 23rd October to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance).

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is it not the fact that the order of priority in which these cases are taken really involves making a social, if not a political, judgment, and is it fair on a civil servant to put that sort of burden on him?

Sir D. Eccles: I do not think so. The Board of Trade undertook this duty only as a temporary operation until the Registrar had his machinery established. He is now in a better position to assess the best order for bringing these cases forward than the Board of Trade is.

Mr. Jay: Can the President of the Board of Trade say whether this relinquishing of authority by the Board of Trade limits still further the power of Members to ask Questions of the President of the Board of Trade about this matter?

Sir D. Eccles: I hope not. I take a great interest in the operation of this Act.

Weights and Measures Regulations

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to state the date when he will


be introducing, as an interim measure, regulations under existing legislation pending a new Weights and Measures Bill.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): I would refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to Questions on this subject on 6th November.

Miss Burton: The Parliamentary Secretary might have referred to 12th June last, when I had just the same Answer. Does the hon. Gentleman not recollect that, as long ago as 21st May last, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade was reported as saying that the Government had been waiting for some years for Parliamentary time to bring forward a new Weights and Measures Bill? Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House what it is that has made it quite impossible, over the past seven years, to bring forward a Bill dealing with the interests of the consumer?

Mr. Rodgers: I realise the interest which the hon. Lady and hon. Members on both sides of the House have shown in this subject, but the proposed regulations raise very complicated questions. The distribution of food itself is varied and complex, and ill-considered weights and measures requirements might increase the cost of food. The Board of Trade, therefore, wishes to be satisfied that it is fully informed on the matter before making regulations, even if this does involve some delay. I am sure that the hon. Lady, on reconsideration, will agree with that.

Mr. Jay: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that about six months ago the President of the Board of Trade himself gave one of his hints, saying that there would he a Bill of this kind in the present Session, and is not this about the only one of the right hon. Gentleman's indiscretions which has turned out to be unfounded?

Mr. Rodgers: Far from it being an indiscretion, I am sure that my right hon. Friend is very disappointed that the Parliamentary time is not available.

Potatoes (Import Licences)

Mr. Lipton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what licences he has issued for the import of potatoes.

Sir D. Eccles: Under the arrangements announced early this month, 414 open individual licences have been issued. Further licences will be issued to any traders who apply.

Mr. Lipton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much has come in by way of imports as a result of these licences? Will he further say whether it is the policy of the Government to go on granting these licences until the present excessively high cost of potatoes is substantially reduced?

Sir D. Eccles: I have not yet got the figures of any imports, but the answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is, "Yes."

Flower Bulbs (Imports)

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the removal of the import quota on Dutch bulbs would not adversely affect the nation's balance of payments by much more than £1 million per annum even if Dutch purchases from Great Britain did not substantially improve in consequence; and to what extent this point has been taken into consideration in delaying its removal.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate has been made by his Department as to what the effect on the nation's balance of payments would be if the present import quota on bulbs was removed; and whether he will provide some information on that aspect of the matter.

Sir D. Eccles: I do not know what the cost would be if Dutch bulbs were removed from control, but it would be substantial as compared with the cost of freeing many other items which are also subject to restrictions. We have taken this factor into account.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Would it not be worth while making this gesture to our good friends and customers the Dutch before Christmas, particularly as so many people are experiencing such difficulty in getting the bulbs they want? Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the biggest bulb wholesalers in the North of England completely ran out of the most popular type of bulb before the


end of September, and is it not time that this racket arising from the quota system was ended?

Sir D. Eccles: To end the quota system would cost a good deal on our balance of payments, and the gesture for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks would immediately be noticed by other trades. For instance, I should be asked to remove restrictions on apples. I am not sure that my hon. and gallant Friend would like that.

Mr. Snow: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the frequent statements by Her Majesty's Government that the import quota on bulbs cannot be lifted until financial circumstances permit, reflect adversely on the credit of Great Britain overseas and encourage other countries to give similar reasons for refusing to provide better facilities for British exports; and whether, in the circumstances, he will give an assurance that the matter will be disposed of before the end of the present calendar year.

Sir D. Eccles: I do not accept the hon. Member's argument that our general trading and financial position suffers because we do not in present circumstances import more bulbs.

Mr. Snow: While that might be a quite clever answer, surely the work of the Paymaster-General is inhibited by this sort of ridiculous policy. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is little evidence to show that British bulb producers would lose in this matter? In any event, his advice appears to be obstinate and misconceived.

Sir D. Eccles: I cannot accept the argument of the hon. Gentleman. There is a good supply of home-grown bulbs and I am fairly certain that damage would be done.

Mr. H. Wilson: Without going into the arguments for or against the bulb position, has not the right hon. Gentleman addressed a very powerful sermon to the G.A.T.T. Powers, saying that quantitative restrictions should not be applied except when a country is in a balance of payments difficulty? Is he claiming that this country, after all the propaganda we have had from the Government and the right hon. Gentleman's party recently, is in a balance of payments difficulty?

Sir D. Eccles: The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that there are hard core waivers in respect of certain goods—

An Hon. Member: What?

Sir D. Eccles: I am using the language of G.A.T.T. A hard core waiver can be obtained in respect of certain goods which are still under quantitative restriction. There are many articles which we still have under quota, and it would not be possible to deal with just one of them in isolation.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that he has a waiver for these hard core bulbs or not?

Sir D. Eccles: Not yet.

Cinemas

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many cinemas have closed in the last six months; and of how many closures in the next six months he has been notified.

Sir D. Eccles: One hundred and eighteen cinemas closed during the six months ended 31st October, 1958. We have been informed of five more cinemas that will have closed by 30th April, 1959. In addition, the Rank Organisation has announced the impending closure of some 80 cinemas, but I do not know when this will take place.

Mr. Swingler: Does this not reveal a very serious situation, which seems to spell doom to the independent exhibitor and, perhaps, to the independent film producer? What is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to do to maintain the level of film production, which still remains very important for export purposes, and also to prevent the cinema trade from coming under monopoly control?

Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a large number of questions in one supplementary. The main fact is that this industry will not be healthy unless is rationalised in the way now proceeding. We are helping the production of British films, which is keeping up very much better than the number of cinemas.

Mr. Rankin: asked the President of le Board of Trade how many cinemas, closed during 1956 and 1957, have now


reopened, following the reduction in cinema entertainments tax in the last Budget.

Sir D. Eccles: Six.

Mr. Rankin: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the figure he has just given shows clearly that the reduction in cinema tax which was announced in the last Budget has not served the purpose that he said it would? Does he now realise that it would be far wiser to remove the tax altogether?

Sir D. Eccles: We always thought that the industry was contracting as a result of competition with television. We could only arrest that trend.

Chinchillas (Advertisements)

Mr. Iremonger: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress he has made with his inquiries into the activities of advertisers of breeding chinchillas for sale, with special reference to fur-grading methods and the state of the market.

Sir D. Eccles: The advertisements have been examined by my Department and I can see nothing in them which calls for action by me. It is for the trade to settle methods of grading furs and for those wishing to enter this business to assess the state of the market.

Mr. Iremonger: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware that it will give a great deal of disappointment to all those who are aware that the small savings of a great many people in this country are being jeopardised by something which is generally recognised as the backwash of a racket which was exposed in America a few years ago? Further, may I give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment?

Hotels (Racial Discrimination)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the President of the Board of Trade why he advised the British Travel and Holidays Association to reject a motion condemning the colour-bar in British hotels.

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the President of the Board of Trade why he advised the annual meeting of the British Travel and Holidays Association to reject a

resolution aimed at discouraging racial discrimination in hotels.

Sir D. Eccles: Her Majesty's Government strongly deplore the practice of any form of racial discrimination, but this does not seem to be a matter in which hotels should be disciplined in the manner suggested. An hotel keeper has certain obligations under common law to receive guests, and it is for the courts to decide whether he fulfils them.

Mr. Robinson: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why he took what the Daily Telegraph describes as the unusual course of offering advice, which, apparently, has not been sought? Is he aware that the effect of his speech on that occasion was to nullify the much more liberal views he expressed in this House, which, I am glad to say, he has reiterated today, in answer to a supplementary question of mine on 31st July?

Sir D. Eccles: I am sorry if that was the effect, but I was asked for my advice and I gave it.

Flick Knives

Mr. Janner: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will prohibit the import of flick knives, in view of the increase in crimes involving the use of these implements.

Sir D. Eccles: As I have explained to the hon. Member in previous answers, flick knives are necessary to certain trades and employment. It is for the Home Office to estimate the danger to public safety of their use for improper purposes.

Mr. Janner: But is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that quite sufficient of these murderous weapons are being manufactured in this country? Is he not aware that youngsters are using these knives in an increasing number of cases and that the courts are very strongly condemning the possibility of their obtaining them without some kind of restriction? Will he not do something about it?

Sir D. Eccles: It is really for the police to say whether the suppression of manufacture and import for which the hon. Gentleman asks would, in fact, achieve the object. From the point of view of the Board of Trade, these knives are essential to certain trades.

Mr. Janner: That is really nonsense.

Exports to Russia and China(Bristol Products)

Mr. Awbery: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the increasing unemployment in the City of Bristol, he will assist the export to Russia and China of goods produced in Bristol.

Sir D. Eccles: In August the strategic controls were lifted from a large number of items which can now be exported if these countries are interested to buy them here. We are anxious to expand trade with Russia and China and give business men in Bristol all the help we can.

Mr. Awbery: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that there is an effective market in both China and Russia for the goods produced in the factories in Bristol, where there is growing unemployment? Trade needs stimulating by the Government, and it is only the Government who can stimulate it. What are the Government doing to stimulate this trade?

Sir D. Eccles: I imagine that one of the articles that the hon. Gentleman has in mind is the Britannia aircraft. We have just said that we will give extended credit facilities for the export of Britannias.

Western Isles (Industrial Development)

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken in recent months, under the Distribution of Industry (Financial Provisions) Act and otherwise, to assist industrial development in the Western Isles, in view of the high and persistent unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

Sir D. Eccles: I have included the Western Isles among the places where financial assistance may be given under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has told the hon. Member of the applications already received. It has never been easy to find new projects for the area. I hope, however, that the new Act may help.

Mr. MacMillan: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is not

likely that he will get applications in this area from large firms for projects able to offer dramatic increases in employment? Therefore, will he give special attention to the small firms, or even to individuals who may be able, by help under the Act, to employ one, two or three more people? If the right hon. Gentleman would keep that in mind and not impose dead average criteria over big industrial areas and outlying areas and islands, it would be a great help.

Sir D. Eccles: I have very much in mind that small firms are the most likely applicants.

Mr. Grimond: Has the right hon. Gentleman given further consideration to the form which is sent out to applicants to complete? It is a most intimidating document which makes them feel that it virtually rules them out. If the right hon. Gentleman could redraft the form to show that small firms are eligible for this help, it would do a good deal to restore confidence in the North.

Sir D. Eccles: We are doing that, and I hope that the result will be satisfactory.

Companies (Political Expenditure)

Mr. Allaun: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will require all public limited companies to state separately in their accounts expenditure for political purposes.

Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir. This is not the type of information which the Companies Act envisages as necessary for the protection of shareholders and potential shareholders.

Mr. Allaun: Are not the public entitled to know the growing extent of this undemocratic practice? For instance, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one company, Stewart & Lloyds Limited, has spent recently £13,050 on one advertisement in nine Sunday newspapers attacking public ownership? In addition, without a separate statement, how is it possible to prevent these companies avoiding tax?

Sir D. Eccles: If I were able to make the regulation for which the hon. Gentleman asks, I am not sure that it would achieve his object. It is so clearly in the interests of a public company to protect


itself against nationalisation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that the publication of a few subscriptions might stimulate many others.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Since this House has placed upon trade unions a statutory obligation to prepare and submit separately their political accounts setting out every penny which is spent on political purposes, why does the right hon. Gentleman think it would be unjust to compel companies to do exactly what the Government are compelling the trade unions to do? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]

Sir D. Eccles: The Companies Act does not envisage in paragraph 12 of the Eighth Schedule this kind of expense as one for which special provision should be made.

Hon. Members: Answer the question.

Mr. Griffiths: My question was: Why is it unfair to compel companies to do this when this House compels trade unions to do exactly the same thing?

Sir D. Eccles: The subscription which one takes from members who do not want to give it and hands to a political party differs from an expense which the shareholders can perfectly well inquire into if they wish.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is it not a fact that every trade union subscription is subject to opting out, whereas in the large public companies shareholders have no effective control over this expenditure? In view of the Government's appeal to trade unions to show restraint in wage claims, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether they think the knowledge that this money is being spent so lavishly on political purposes is the best way to secure wage restraint? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman say how much of this money would be spent if the Chancellor were not paying for three-quarters of it?

Sir D. Eccles: I cannot accept the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, but I think it is generally agreed that it is in the interests of a public company to take action to protect its own business, and a company that is threatened with nationalisation is perfectly right in taking protective action.

Mr. Mawby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of the trade union

magazines, the accounts of which do not appear in the political levy, use that opportunity to put forward political views?

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this advertising is not confined to firms who think that they have a direct interest, from the firm's point of view, in nationalisation, but large subscriptions are going, for instance, to the Federation of British Industries, to the Aims of Industry, and to many other institutions which are running political propaganda against the Labour Party?

Sir D. Eccles: Firms have an interest in the economic system of which they are a member.

Mr. Allaun: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Post-war Credits

Mr. John Hall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if, in addition to existing arrangements for the repayment of post-war credits, he will repay a further fixed sum each year by way of drawings through the medium of the electronic random numeral indicating equipment;
(2) if he will reduce the age at which post-war credits will be repaid.

Mr. Hirst: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the light of current economic conditions, he will now consider earlier repayment of post-war credits.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. Members for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) on 11th November.

Mr. Hall: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that I made the suggestion contained in my first Question in the most helpful spirit? I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have great difficulty, if he is considering facilitating the rate of repayment, in deciding between the conflicting views of many people who think they have a


special claim or privilege in this question. Would not the use of E.R.N.I.E. as an impartial arbitrator greatly assist him in the solution of this problem? If I may deal with the second of my Questions which my hon. and learned Friend has answered, is it not a fact that for many people very soon the post-war credits will become posthumous credits?

Mr. Simon: I recognise readily the helpful spirit in which my hon. Friend asked this Question. Nevertheless, I think that if money were available for further release it would probably be best to distribute it by way of a reduction in the qualifying age for repayment rather than by random selection. With regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I would refer him to the answer which was given by my right hon. Friend on Tuesday.

Mr. Hirst: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that I am well aware of all these stonewalling answers, and of many we had had before? Is he further aware that, however valid they were in the context and time in which they were made, they surely cannot continue to exist in the present state of the economy, which has at least undergone some measure of change?

Mr. Simon: I think my hon. Friend underestimates my power of stonewalling.

Mr. Hirst: Not even before that one.

Mrs. Braddock: In view of the public concern arising out of this matter, would not the hon. and learned Gentleman look at the situation and at any rate release post-war credits to the next of kin upon the death of a person who owns them? That ought to be administratively possible quite easily. It would certainly go a long way towards easing some of the great criticism which there is of the lack of action in this matter.

Mr. Simon: Yes, my right hon. Friend does keep this matter continually under review.

Mr. H. Wilson: While I would be the last person to underestimate the hon. and learned Gentleman's power of stonewalling, may I ask if it is not a fact that we have now been told officially by no less a person than the Lord Mayor of London that St. George at 10, Downing Street,

has slain inflation, and in these circumstances, as the argument against repayment of post-war credits needs rather urgent reconsideration, without waiting for an election Budget, will the Government consider paying off post-war credits in cases of acute hardship among widows. pensioners, and others on National Assistance?

Mr. Simon: I am not responsible for the pronouncements of the Lord Mayor of London. With regard to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I would refer him to the answer I gave last week on the question of repaying on the basis of hardship.

Mr. Hirst: More stonewalling.

Mr. John Hall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further consideration has been given to the possibility of accepting post-war credits in payment of Estate Duty.

Mr. Simon: My right hon. Friend has given further consideration to this possibility, but he regrets that he is still not able to adopt it.

Mr. Hall: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that a large number of Government creditors have been waiting at least thirteen years for repayment of their forced loans? Would he not therefore offer the same interest-free credit terms to those who are liable to pay this destructive tax on capital, and if he will not do so, will he explain the justification for the differential treatment?

Mr. Simon: I do not think that the question of Estate Duty is in any way comparable with that of post-war credits. At to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I would respectfully refer him to what was said by my right hon. Friend on Tuesday.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Will the Financial Secretary tell us how much is now outstanding under this heading and what would be the effect if the Chancellor saw his way to reduce the ages of men and women by five years in each case?

Mr. Simon: The total now outstanding is approximately £440 million, and the cost of a five-year reduction in the qualifying age would be approximately £85 million in the year of change.

Public Works Loan Board (Interest Charges)

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to reduce the rate of interest charged to local authorities by the Public Works Loan Board.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. F. J. Erroll): The rates charged by the Public Works Loan Board will, as usual, be adjusted when this is warranted by changes in the rates at which local authorities can borrow in the market.

Mr. Jay: As even the Chancellor as well as the Lord Mayor of London now admit that the need is for re-expanding our economy, how is it justifiable to impose this penal interest rate on local government house building? Does the Economic Secretary realise that the Government are now offering loans of public money to building societies at a lower rate than they are lending to local authorities for the same purpose?

Mr. Erroll: The rate is in accordance with the policy previously announced, and the latest reduction was made as recently as 25th October.

Mr. Jay: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since then hire-purchase loans to building societies have been announced? How can it be right to lend public money to building societies for house building at lower rates than to local authorities?

Mr. Erroll: Loans are made to local authorities for many other purposes than house building.

Newcastle-under-Lyme

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the need for special action to restore full employment in the United Kingdom economy, especially in areas like Newcastle-under-Lyme, where the percentage of unemployment has risen to 3·6 per cent. compared with the national average of 2·2 per cent.; and what particular measures he is planning for this purpose.

Mr. Erroll: I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the successive measures my right hon. Friend has announced in recent months to encourage

the highest possible levels of employment, consistent with the avoidance of inflation. Some of these measures are designed specifically for areas of high unemployment though others should have a more general effect.

Mr. Swingler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that answer will give no sort of satisfaction at all to the increasing numbers of my constituents who have been suffering unemployment over the last three years? Is he aware that some sort of positive action is required in these places which are suffering a higher than average unemployment? As a short-term programme I would suggest the abolition of Purchase Tax on pottery, building the by-pass around Newcastle-under-Lyme, and adding two or three school projects to the school building programme. Will he consider with his colleagues these positive measures as a start? After he has accepted those, I will give him a few more.

Mr. Erroll: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be grateful for those suggestions.

Food Prices and Expenditure

Mr. Sparks: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage and amount of consumers' expenditure upon food is attributable to rising prices for each year from 1951 to the nearest convenient date in 1958;
(2) by how much, in percentage and amount, import prices have fallen in each year since 1951 to the nearest convenient date in 1958; and
(3) the internal purchasing power of the £ sterling for each year since 1951, taking the value of the £ sterling as 20s. in October, 1951, to the nearest convenient date in 1958.

Mr. Erroll: As the Answer is long and contains tables of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Sparks: Can the hon. Gentleman say why food prices have risen so steeply and why the internal purchasing power of the £ has fallen so heavily in recent years?

Mr. Erroll: I would ask the hon. Member to study the tables of figures first, particularly as there will be a


further opportunity of questioning me next Thursday, when the Treasury will be at the top of the list.

Following is the Answer:

CONSUMERS' EXPENDITURE ON FOOD

It is not possible, on the basis of the information available, to estimate precisely how much of the year-to-year change in consumers' expenditure on food is attributable to changes in prices. However, an approximate calculation, based on the figures of expenditure at current prices and on the index numbers of prices (average 1954=100) given in tables 26 and 29 respectively of the Blue Book "National Income and Expenditure 1958" is given below:



Estimated total expenditure
Increase over previous year
Increase over previous year attributable to price change


Amount
Percentage of total expenditure in the year



£ million
£ million
£ million



1951
2,987
253
307
10·3


1952
3,282
295
325
9·9


1953
3,539
257
140
4·0


1954
3,807
268
141
3·7


1955
4,137
330
245
5·9


1956
4,392
255
172
2·9


1957
4,562
170
107
2·3


Because of seasonal variations in consumption, it is not possible to give comparable figures for the first half of 1958.




IMPORT PRICES


—
Index 1951=100
Percentage reduction since 1951
Percentage change from previous year


1951
100




1952
98
2
-2


1953
89
11
-9


1954
88
12
-1


1955
91
9
+3


1956
93
7
+2


1957
95
5
+2


1958 (Jan-Sept.)
88
12
-7




PURCHASING POWER OF THE £



s.
d.

s.
d.


October
1952–20
0

1955–18
3



1952–19
7

1956–17
5



1953–19
3

1957–16
11



1954–18
10
September
1958–16
7


These estimates are based on the consumer price index, adjusted for October, 1951, and September, 1958, by the index of retail prices.

Iron and Steel Companies (Political Propaganda)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Iron and Steel Holdings Realisation Agency authorised Richard Thomas and Baldwin's Limited to contribute to a publication issued by the British Iron and Steel Federation in October, 1958, attacking steel nationalisation; and whether he will give instructions that public money should not be spent on subsidising propaganda against public ownership.

Mr. Marquand: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are taken by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency to ensure that no contributions are made, directly or indirectly, by iron and steel companies, the shares of which are held by the Agency, towards advertising or other forms of a political campaign against national ownership of the industry.

Mr. Erroll: It is a standing instruction from the Agency to the companies they hold that no contribution should be made to any political organisation. Richard Thomas and Baldwin's, in common with other steel producers, makes a contribution to the administrative expenses of the British Iron and Steel Federation. No question arose of making any special contribution to the publication to which the hon. Member presumably refers.

Mr. Allaun: But is it not a fact that Richard Thomas, which is still publicly owned, have contributed towards recent Steel Federation advertisements in the newspapers, in addition to the pamphlet I have mentioned, attacking public ownership and costing thousands of pounds? Is it not grossly unfair and inequitable that the Government should be using taxpayers' money to subsidise what is virtually Conservative Party policy?

Mr. Erroll: As I said, no question of any special provision arose, and I should like to stress that the Agency keeps the question of subscriptions under continual review.

Mr. Marquand: Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the Government also will keep it strictly under review and ensure that no contributions, directly or indirectly, are


made on a political matter like this by companies which are still the property of the nation and the people?

Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend has every confidence in the Agency carrying out its periodical review.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman state that the Government deprecate any public body of this kind using public money for party political purposes?

Mr. K. Robinson: Answer yes or no.

Mr. Erroll: I think that is a hypothetical question.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. H. Wilson: In view of the earlier Questions, will the hon. Gentleman say whether in paying money to the Iron and Steel Federation, Richard Thomas and Baldwin have a right to opt out of paying that part of the money which is devoted to political purposes, as every trade unionist in this country has?

Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend has no responsibility for the affairs of the British Iron and Steel Federation.

Mr. Jay: Is this not just further evidence of corrupt practices by the party opposite?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Marquand: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply to my Question No. 52, I give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Arts Council (Report)

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has studied the 13th Annual Report of the Arts Council of Great Britain, 1957–58; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Simon: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes," and to the second part "No, Sir".

Mr. Dugdale: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman consider that £1¼ million is an adequate sum for the State and local authorities to give to the arts and music as compared with £16 million which they give, and rightly so, to public libraries and £1,600 million which is given to defence? Will not the hon. and learned Gentleman look into this matter again? Does ho have no regard

for the fact that the arts and music have done far more for British reputation abroad than the present Government have done?

Mr. Simon: I can safely disregard the last part of that question. With regard to the first part, the requirements of the Arts Council will, of course, be kept under review at the time of the Estimates.

Mr. H. Wilson: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that this is not a party point? I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House feel that in these circumstances—[Interruption.] This is not a party point; I am not making one. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that in all parts of the House—if this can be denied, let it be denied—there is a desire that more should be spent on arts and amenities? In the period in which this matter is under consideration, will the hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friend give consideration to what, on all sides, is recognised to be the totally derisory amount which is given for this purpose? In a period of national expansion, can we not do more?

Mr. Simon: Expenditure on the Arts Council has risen from £235,000 in 1945–46 to £1,100,000 now. In each of the last two years, there has been an increase of £100,000 or more. I know that many hon. Members in all parts of the House would like to see more spent on the arts, but, on the other hand, my right hon. Friend has 'to consider the many claims made upon the Exchequer.

Capital Investment

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of capital investment it is proposed to authorise for the roads programme, the nationalised electric power industry and the British Transport Commission, respectively, during the year 1959–60.

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent, in each case, restrictions imposed on the investment programmes of nationalised industries in 1957 have now been relaxed.

Mr. Erroll: It was intended in 1957 that the power and transport industries would invest more in 1959–60 than they did in 1957–58. During the summer these


increases have been augmented, and further short-term additions are now being made. In total, as my right hon. Friend said last week, there will be a substantial increase over last year. But since the programmes are under continuous consideration, I cannot at this stage give precise figures for them, either individually or in aggregate.

Mr. Davies: When does the Economic Secretary consider he will be able to give the precise figures for these different industries, particularly transport and roads? How is it that when a ceiling has been placed upon expenditure, atter a cut-back the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no difficulty whatever in telling us the amount which the different industries can spend, but that when there is an increase the Government carefully hold back and withhold information from the House?

Mr. Erroll: I should like to be more helpful to the hon. Member, but at this stage, as I said in my Answer, it is not possible for me to be so.

Mr. D. Jones: Can we be told whether the increase this year is more than it was last year before the cut was made, or whether it is merely restoring the cut?

Mr. Erroll: I would require notice of that question.

Covent Garden Opera

Dr. Stross: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has noted the financial help given by the London County Council and the Independent Television Authority to the Sadlers Wells Opera Company; and whether he will now substantially increase the grant to the Arts Council so that Covent Garden may be adequately supported.

Mr. Simon: The Answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir". On the second part of the Question, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the publication of the Estimates for 1959–60.

Dr. Stross: Is it accepted by the Financial Secretary and the Government generally that the greatest patron of Covent Garden is the Government themselves, who use it for prestige purposes? Has the hon. and learned Gentleman noted a recent statement by the Director of Covent Garden that if things continue

as they are, ultimately and, perhaps, not very far away in time, this institution will have to close down and we shall have no grand opera in London? Has the hon. and learned Gentleman further noted the view of Lord Bridges, and does he agree with it, that it might be as well to take this matter away from the Arts Council and put it on the Vote as it is, indeed, a national institution?

Mr. Simon: I have, indeed noted the observations to which the hon. Member draws attention. The actual distribution of the Arts Council grant is a matter for the Arts Council in which my right hon. Friend does not interfere. I would, however, point out that the grants to Covent Garden have risen from £25,000 in 1945–46 to £362,000 this year.

Dr. Stross: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate this now. Hon. Members must choose another opportunity.

Contributions to the Arts (Taxation)

Dr. Stross: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will allow contributions to the arts by industrial establishments to qualify for exemption from taxation.

Mr. Simon: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend does not see his way to propose a change of this character in the general taxation law.

Dr. Stross: Does the Financial Secretary not agree that if the Government themselves will not adequately support the arts, they should make it easy for industry and private citizens to do so, and that if they will not themselves pay for it and they allow no one else easily to come forward to take a part, that is a disgraceful state of affairs?

Mr. Simon: No, Sir. To make a tax change of this sort would involve a remission in taxation to individual taxpayers and, thus, a burden on the general body of taxpayers, which would amount to a Government subvention. It would not be shifting the burden from the Government to anybody else. With regard to the actual proposal, I do not think that it would be practical to make a distinction between one type of good cause such as this and another.

Mr. H. Wilson: In view of earlier answers this afternoon, why do the Government allow tax deductions for contributions for political purposes, direct and indirect, and refuse them for contributions to arts? Are the Government not making this distinction between a good cause and a bad one?

Mr. Simon: No, Sir. In general, payments for political purposes are not a proper deduction from gross income. [Interruption.] The Tate and Lyle case turned on a narrow point. The test laid down by the general taxation law applies to all types of expenditure. The expenditure must not be of a capital nature and it must be laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade. My understanding of the Tate and Lyle case is that it was merely said that a company was entitled to lay out expenditure for the protection of its assets.

Mr. H. Wilson: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether contributions to the F.B.I. for its pamphlet on nationalisation are allowed for tax purposes as being wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade of the firm concerned?

Mr. Simon: I should require notice of that question, because, as far as I know, it has not arisen in any case.

Mr. Bevan: If the industry concerned employed the services of one or other eminent artist to illustrate its propaganda, would it rank for exemption from tax?

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Are Privy Councillors entitled to ask any number of questions?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid there is no Ruling against it.

Dame Irene Ward: I have risen three times to ask a supplementary question.

Dr. Stross: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Bicycles (Tax)

Dr. Stross: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has been informed of the fall in sales of bicycles both for export and The home trade and if he will therefore assist this industry by abolishing the Purchase Tax.

Mrs. Slater: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the continued reduction of the sale of bicycles on the home market; and what proposals he has to make with a view to the reduction of Purchase Tax.

Mr. Erroll: I have nothing to add to the Answer my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) earlier this week.

Dr. Stross: Does the Economic Secretary accept that he has had representations made to him from all sides of the House from very many hon. Members on this matter, and that this is a very serious subject? Could not help be given to the industry now, before it is too late?

Mr. Hirst: Is not my hon. Friend aware that owing to the success of the Conservative Government many more people are now riding about in motor cars instead of on bicycles?

Mr. Erroll: I must say that I think that that is a fact which the manufacturers of bicycles ought to take into account in addition to the tax matter.

Mrs. Slater: Does not the hon. Gentleman also realise that for a large number of working-class people a bicycle is the only mean of getting about and going to work? Does he also realise that his reply to the question raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) is not a fair answer to this problem? Would he not give us some definite information as to what his right hon. Friend intends to do about the matter?

Mr. Erroll: The question dealt with the manufacturers of bicycles rather than with the users of them.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Purchase Tax is removed it will encourage more people to buy bicycles, that this will reduce their fatigue in getting to work and thereby increase industrial output? Does he also realise that bicycles are also useful for physical recreation?

Shipping Industry

Mr. Peyton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the current difficulties of British shipping, he will receive a deputation of representatives of the industry.

Mr. Simon: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Peyton: I am grateful for that reply. May I ask my hon. and learned Friend if he will invite his right hon. Friend, before he receives a deputation, to reflect upon two things? First, that in the past 20 years there has been no new entrant into the British shipping industry; and secondly, that the tax straitjacket in which the industry now languishes enhances the already excessive good fortune enjoyed by operators of shipping under flags of convenience?

Mr. Simon: Yes, Sir. I will draw my hon. Friend's observations to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Peyton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the provisions for depreciation of ships.

Mr. Simon: My right hon. Friend will consider this matter.

Mr. Peyton: May I ask if particular consideration could be given to the possibility of allowing British shipowners to write off the cost of their ships so soon as their profits allow them to do so, without any other restrictions? Is he aware that it is in this field particularly, where we are extending to these flags of convenience owners, who have already enjoyed an excessive good fortune, an advantage which they have done nothing to deserve?

Mr. Simon: Yes, Sir, that will be one of the matters which my right hon. Friend will take into consideration. On the other hand, I am bound to point out that, following the recent tax remissions in favour of the shipping industry, 88 per cent. of the cost of new dry cargo vessels and 95 per cent, of the cost of new tankers is allowed for tax purposes in the first five years.

SMALL FIXED INCOME GROUP (PENSIONS)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the dissatisfaction on immutability in the field of pensions which is disadvantageous to those living on small fixed incomes, he will introduce legislation to enable appeals from those drawing pensions affected by immutability to go to arbitration, thus giving equality to all sections affected by inflation.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): No, Sir. The best way to help all who live on small fixed incomes and the way we have tried to follow is to keep inflation under control. If everyone is to contract out of inflation, I fear this will not make the task of controlling inflation any easier.

Miss Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend why that is laid down for those living on small fixed incomes when other people have the right to go to arbitration? Is it not a monstrous injustice, when the Conservative Party wants "one nation", to have two nations? Is not this a monstrous injustice to those living on small fixed incomes?

The Prime Minister: I think that the record of the last few years, both in regard to tax assistance and various other methods of helping those with small incomes, and in regard to Pensions (Increase) Acts and the stability of the cost of living, is a good record.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The hon. Lady does not agree.

EUROPEAN GAMES

Miss Burton: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the staging in this country of the European Games of 1962 would bring much prestige to Great Britain; and if Her Majesty's Government will take steps, by provision of a grant or otherwise, to ensure that this is achieved.

The Prime Minister: I think it is right that the Government should leave this matter to the sporting organisations.

Miss Burton: The Prime Minister seems to be singularly uninformed. Is he aware that the generosity and public spirit shown by the News of the World have now put a better face on this matter and is the reason for this Question being on the Order Paper today? Might I further ask the Prime Minister if he realises that these Games have never been held in Britain but have been held in Italy, France, Norway, Belgium, Switzerland, and Sweden? Does he not think, as Leader of the Government of the day, that some steps should be taken to help this country in sporting affairs?

The Prime Minister: I think it is splendid that the Games will take place in Britain. The Empire Games were held in Wales this year with great success, but no subvention was asked for or required and a handsome profit was made. The Olympic Games were held in this country in 1948, and succeeded in doing so without loss or subvention. The Government gave some minor assistance in providing building materials and so forth, and I am very glad to know that in this way it will be possible to hold these Games.
Perhaps I was only wrong—or not so wrong—in regarding the News of the World as a sporting organisation.

Miss Burton: As the staff of the Prime Minister has so misinformed him, and as I would hate him to go in error, may I ask him if he is aware that it is not yet, unfortunately, a case of these Games being held here but merely that it is possible now to make application for them, and that the News of the World has made that possible?

The Prime Minister: Whether they are held here or not is not a question of financial support.

CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (DUTIES)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister what are the duties now allocated to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

The Prime Minister: In addition to his duties in relation to administration of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Chancellor of the Duchy is responsible for the co-ordination of Government information services at home and oversea. Individual Ministers remain responsible for the information policy of their Departments.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware of the statement made by Lord Poole at Blackpool recently that the work of the Tory Party Central Office
would have been impossible if it were not for the tremendous work that Dr. Hill and his small organisation are doing.
Does that mean that public money is being used to benefit the Tory Party Central Organisation, and is the Minister trying to co-ordinate the activities of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The responsibility of my right hon. Friend is to ensure that Government policy and action are fully and clearly explained. This responsibility was carried out under previous Governments by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison). but, of course, if the policy is good and the presentation effective, and they are, then it makes it much easier for the work of a party organisation in its own appropriate field.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Is the Prime Minister aware that the work which was done by Ministers in the Labour Government was totally different in kind from the sort of help which the Chancellor of the Duchy gives to the party propaganda for the party on his side of the House? Does the Prime Minister agree that Lord Poole's description of the work of the Chancellor of the Duchy was accurate or not?

The Prime Minister: I have explained that because the work of the Government is good, because through the appropriate and legitimate methods it is objectively quite clearly set out, that makes easier the work of the party organisation. Of course, I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman, because under his conditions the work he had to explain was bad and the party organisation was in trouble.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister aware that, apart from his own back benchers, that explanation will be regarded by everybody as totally unconvincing? Is he further aware that what Lord Poole said raises the gravest suspicion that public money paid to the Chancellor of the Duchy and his staff is being used for the private purposes of the Conservative Party.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's allegations are completely untrue. If he wants to have any more damp squibs, he had better wait for the one that is coming later.

Mr. H. Wilson: In order that the House can approach this subject with the required degree of objectivity, would the right hon. Gentleman publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of all the meetings which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has had with newspaper editors


and all the occasions on which he has put pressure on the B.B.C. and I.T.V. in the past six months for the purposes of party as opposed to State propaganda?

The Prime Minister: That is not a supplementary question asking for information. It is an offensive suggestion.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

MINISTER'S SPEECH (PRESS RELEASE)

Mr. Peart: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the allegation that a Conservative Central Office Press release notice was sent out in an official Ministry of Education envelope.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The hon. Gentleman the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) said yesterday that it was reported to Sir Norman Brook that he had in his possession a document relating to this matter. Sir Norman Brook had finished the investigation which I had asked him to make on the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and I thought that for the general convenience of the House the report should be made and circulated as soon as possible. I have, however, made all the inquiries that are possible, after an interval of two years, on this affair.
The then Minister of Education made a speech at a party occasion at Box, on 21st July, 1956. The Press release was distributed in the usual way by the Conservative Central Office. The Ministry of Education does not issue Press releases of the Minister's party speeches and did not do so on this occasion. This is confirmed by the records. I observe from the Press that it is alleged that a copy of this speech was sent out from the Ministry to the Editor of the Labour Teacher in an official envelope dated 23rd July, two days after the delivery of the speech and its general circulation by the Conservative Central Office.
It is difficult at this length of time to find the explanation of this, assuming it

to be correct. It may be that the Editor has fallen into some confusion because the Ministry's records show that he was sent a routine Press notice on pensions for teachers' dependants which was circulated generally to the Press by the Ministry of Education and which was sent in an official envelope on 23rd July—the very same day on which the Editor says he was sent the copy of the party speech in an official envelope.
Furthermore, the code number on the envelope which contained the official notice on pensions was E.8.P. I am informed that this is, in fact, the code number on the envelope in the hon. Member's possession.

Mr. Peart: The Editor of the Labour Teacher handed this over two years ago —[HON. MEMBERS: "To whom?"]—and stated that it was contained in the official envelope. I did not use it in the debate at the time, because I concentrated on the Press release of the Ministry concerned. Since then, because of the Brook inquiry, the Editor of the Labour Teacher wrote to Sir Norman Brook to say that he had received this. I have been informed by the Editor that he is still prepared to swear on oath that he received this Conservative and Unionist Central Office publication of the Minister's speech in the official envelope.
The Editor is still prepared to swear on oath that he received it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Two years ago."] Of course it is two years ago, but I am dealing with the President of the Board of Trade, who is known as "Smarty Boots".

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: I think that hon. Members strengthen their case by refraining from nicknames.

Mr. Peart: That is true, Sir, but I have been provoked by hon. Members interrupting. I am merely stating that the Editor insists that this circular was contained in this envelope, and I have reason to believe it is so. I believe that the very fact that he is prepared to swear an affidavit indicates—

Mr. Pickthorn: On a point of order. Since we had yesterday a long and ragged debate about the nonsense from "Brummagem", may I inquire now what we are debating and whether what, in fact, we


are having are supplementary questions? If so, how was that either a supplementary or a question?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), who asked a Private Notice Question, was entitled to ask supplementary questions, but it is true that he omitted to put himself in order by saying, "Is the Prime Minister aware that—" but I assume that he meant to do that.

The Prime Minister: The point is a quite simple one. It is rather difficult to establish the precise facts, but the facts are that the general circular of this speech, or whatever it might be, running into hundreds of copies, was made by the Conservative Central Office, and, quite naturally, made before the speech was made, because a Press release made two days after a speech has been made is not a very helpful exercise. It was also established that there was no circulation of the Ministry circular before the speech was made, because the records of all that are in the Ministry and show that no general circulation was made.
Now it is said, and I am quite sure in good faith, by this gentleman that he received an envelope in which a copy of this speech was included, two days after it was made. We know that he received an envelope with this document about teachers' pensions. It is possible, but, I should have thought, very unlikely, that both these documents were put in the same envelope, nor do I see why it should have been done. It is very unlikely that it would have been done and it is not likely that it would have been sent out two days after the speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I think that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have some experience of the purpose of a Press release. It is not very useful to send it out after a speech has been made.

Mr. Peart: The Prime Minister must agree that it is most unusual that, although two years ago is a long time, this Editor should complain as he did and that he should be prepared to present his point of view to an important inquiry. Would the Prime Minister see, therefore, in his instructions on the principles of procedure to be pursued by Government Departments, that no political Press hand-outs of Ministerial statements

should be contained in Departmental envelopes?

The Prime Minister: It would, perhaps, have been easier to inquire into if the matter had been brought to my predecessor's attention two years ago.
I can add only that when we draw up this new circular I should be very much surprised if it did not deal with this point on party propaganda sent out Ministerially. I am sure that we should all wish that nothing like what the hon. Member for Workington has complained of should happen again, all the more so because I am quite satisfied that it never happened at all.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 17TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Factories Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
TUESDAY, 18TH NOVEMBER—Committee stage of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill.
Committee and remaining stages of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Bill.
Committee stage of the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 19TH NOVEMBER—We propose to give time for a debate on a Prayer to be tabled by the Opposition relating to the Compulsory Industrial Arbitration Order.
THURSDAY, 20TH NOVEMBER—Committee and remaining stages of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
FRIDAY, 21ST NOVEMBER—Consideration of private Members' Motions.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I may announce the composition of the delegation to present the Mace to the House of Representatives of The West Indies, which has been arranged in consultation with you, Sir. It will consist of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorkshire (Sir T. Dugdale), who will lead the


delegation, the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme), and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede).
The delegation will be accompanied by Mr. D. W. S. Lidderdale, the Fourth Clerk at the Table.
A Motion will be proposed in the course of next week to give leave of absence to the members of the delegation. It is expected that the delegation will leave at the end of this month.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will make arrangements for an early debate, if possible the following week, on the Central African Federation Constitution. with which we could also take the Rhodesia and Nyasaland Federation Order? The right hon. Gentleman will remember that there were exchanges on this matter with the Colonial Secretary before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I cannot guarantee that it will be next week, but we said originally that we would give time for such a debate, and, therefore, if we might discuss it through the usual channels we can no doubt agree a mutually convenient date.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I say that in our opinion it is extremely important to us? This is a matter of urgency in view of the fact that the election in the Central Federation has just taken place.

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. The Government is aware of the importance of this issue, and we will bear that in mind in any conversations about a date for the debate.

Sir G. Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility, fairly soon, of devoting a day to the discussion of the important subject of Treasury control of expenditure? May I remind him that the Estimates Committee recently introduced a Report on this subject, which is, at any rate, an introduction to it, and that it would be a welcome change for the House to leave for one day the pursuance of party warfare and pay attention to one of its main duties, which is the control of supply?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates and no doubt this would be a

thoroughly suitable matter for the House of Commons to discuss. At the moment, however, I cannot foresee a day which would be available. Perhaps my hon. Friend will keep in touch with me on the matter.

Mr. Hale: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that when he announces that the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill will be taken through all its remaining stages on one day, he is announcing to the Opposition that Amendments will not be considered or accepted and that the force of the vote will be used to enforce the Committee stage word by word? Is not this a discourteous statement in connection with a Bill of great importance, and in connection with which he has already been given notice that many of us who assented to the taking of the Second Reading as a matter of form had been promised that there would be full discussion of the Bill when it came before the House in Committee?

Mr. Butler: First, it has not always been the case—I looked up precedent—that the Bill in these stages takes a whole day, but we have allocated a whole day. Secondly, if any Amendments are made, we cannot take the remaining stages. Thirdly, we always live in hope and announce what we hope to achieve.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind the desirability of a debate on the Montreal Conference, having regard to the fact that there has not been a Ministerial statement in the House and that those of us who raised points about it during the debate on the Gracious Speech did not get any answers?

Mr. Butler: In view of the great success and achievements of the Montreal Conference I will certainly discuss this point with my right hon. Friend principally concerned, with the sole reservation as to the difficulty of finding time.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the Leader of the House aware that I put a question to the Prime Minister on this subject, and that the right hon. Gentleman said that all the information which could be given was contained in the Press release? That is not good enough. We should like to press for this debate.

Mr. Butler: It would be almost impossible to include in a statement the vast achievements of the Montreal Conference, and, therefore, we would certainly like an opportunity of making them more clear.

Mr. Iremonger: Has my right hon. Friend given any consideration to the Motion standing in my name in connection with the Fourth Report of the Committee of Privileges? If so, can he tell the House of his intentions in the matter?

[That this House agrees with the Committee in its recommendation that no further action be taken in the matter of the breach of privilege committed by the Editor of the Romford Recorder newspaper, but, believing that the unique and unfettered power rightly belonging to this House in respect of its privileges puts upon its Committee of Privileges a special responsibility for ensuring that its procedure accords with the principle that no person should be tried and condemned in his absence, deplores the facts that the Editor of the Romford Recorder was not required to attend the Committee to speak for himself, that no reference is made in the Committee's report to the prominence subsequently given in his newspaper to statements which modified the impact of the headline complained of, and that the Editor's explanatory letter to the Committee was neither acknowledged to him nor referred to in the report, and recognises the unfair damage that such procedure might cause to the reputation of a professional man; and, further, regrets the delay in considering this report, during which time the freedom of the Press has been restrained in so much as the newspaper concerned was inhibited by fear of committing a further breach of privilege in making its public explanation of the circumstances.]

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I have before me the Motion of my hon. Friend, dealing with an alleged breach of Privilege by the Editor of the Romford Recorder, which is included in the Report of the Committee published in the Session 1956–57. It is not always that Reports of the Committee of Privileges can be debated. I think that they can only be debated if there is a wide demand among hon. Members. I appreciate that my hon. Friend has considerable constituency associations with this matter, but I

cannot hold out hope of the time of the whole House being taken on this matter.

Mr. H. Wilson: While supporting, if I may, the plea of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) that time be given to debate the important Report of the Estimates Committee, on Treasury control, may I also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that there is a feeling on both sides of the House, and in the country generally, that we are now approaching the time when it is urgent to have a debate on the Free Trade Area negotiations?
We have been very patient, as a House, while these have been going on, but unless there is a successful conclusion in the next few days, would the Lord Privy Seal bear in mind the desirability of having a debate on this matter, and all the dangers resulting from it, before we adjourn for Christmas?

Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 6th November that he would like the current negotiations to be allowed to continue before the question of a debate arises, but, subject to that, we do not under-estimate the vital importance of this subject. I will note the right hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. Ernest Davies: In view of the important statement made by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation last week on the affairs of the British Transport Commission, which is now, at the instigation of the Opposition, rather belatedly to be published as a White Paper, can the Leader of the House say what arrangements are being made for a debate? Is he aware of the urgency of having this debate, in view of the Minister's statement at Question Time yesterday that he did not know how he was going to deal with the situation?

Mr. Butler: We might have an opportunity of discussing this on a day allocated to discussing the nationalised industries. We might consider that through the usual channels. Apart from that, I will note the point put by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Usborne: Could the Leader of the House say how soon we may expect to debate the Report of the Wolfenden


Committee? Is he aware that a great many people find it a monstrous discourtesy to those who serve on such committees that a Report of that importance should not be debated in this House after so long a time?

Mr. Butler: I have stated that we hope to have a debate before Christmas. We certainly would hope to have it before we adjourn for the Christmas Recess.

Mr. Grey: Is the Leader of the House aware of the great concern there is about opencast mining? Has he seen the Motion about it on the Order Paper, and, if so, can he say whether we shall have a debate on the matter shortly?

[That this House, bearing in mind the likelihood that some collieries may be closed, either because of exhaustion of seams or high stocks of coal, that redundancy will result, and that this process will create a considerable recruiting problem when a policy of national expansion is resumed, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to issue a direction to the National Coal Board to reduce the output of opencast coal until the demand for coal supplies increases to the point when additional supplies of opencast coal are required.]

Mr. Butler: I have the Motion before me, but I cannot give any date for a discussion. It is natural, at this time of the Session, that all claims should be staked. I will take note of the claim of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Reverting to the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley (Mr. Usborne), will the Lord Privy Seal bear in mind that the Wolfenden Report deals with two distinct subjects and that it is important that the views of the House on the one should not be lost in those of the other? Would he, therefore, consider organising the debate in such a way that this does not take place, by having a separate half-day on each subject?

Mr. Butler: Some of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House have represented this difficulty to me. It is not easy to divide the day and I do not see any chance of having more than one day for this debate. However, in view of what has been put to me on both sides of the House, we must

consider the matter, as represented by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has seen a Motion on the Order Paper concerning the implementation of the Gowers Report on the working conditions of railway-men? In view of the very emphatic assurances that he has himself given on this subject, which were repeated just before the Summer Recess by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, that we should get legislation in this Parliament, when will he give us time for a debate and when shall we get legislation?

[That this House, recalling repeated and emphatic assurances by Ministers that they would introduce legislation to make further provision for the health, welfare and safety of railway and allied workers in the light of the recommendations of the Cowers Committee, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce such legislation forthwith.]

Mr. Butler: I was not aware that any statement had been made about legislation this Session, but I was aware of several expressions of opinion on both sides of the House about the need for dealing with the problem of the welfare, safety and health of railway workers. I cannot give a date for the discussion of this Motion, but I will simply note what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Noel-Baker: With great respect, I think that the Leader of the House has misunderstood the situation. If he will look at what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said in the debate on 9th May, I think it was, he will see that a categorical undertaking was given that it was the intention of the Government to introduce legislation. Is that so, or is it not? If it is so, when does the right hon. Gentleman expect that we shall get the legislation?

Mr. Butler: Having studied those words, I was not aware that they bore the interpretation that there would necessarily be legislation this Session.

Mr. D. Jones: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that he himself, during a previous Session of this Parliament, said that it was the desire and intention of the Government to implement the Gowers


Report in the lifetime of this Parliament? As this is likely to be the last Session of this Parliament, then, obviously, legislation must be introduced?

Mr. Butler: As the House knows, the Government have made progress with the Gowers Report recently as applied to agriculture. We have a very full programme, including the Bill which we are taking next week to deal with conditions in factories, which is an analogous matter. We are doing as much as we can in the time available to us.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Are we to now take it that the Government do not propose to implement fully, in this Parliament, the Gawers Report?

Mr. Butler: We had better wait and see how long this Parliament goes on.

ADJOURNMENT DEBATES

Mr. Hale: I wish to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of incidents which occurred in the House last night. I do not seek to challenge the Rulings which you gave or to reopen a discussion which was pursued at some considerable length. I wish merely to ask, as there is a Select Committee on Procedure sitting at the moment—I know that I must not make reference to that, except to say that it exists—and as certain issues were left unclear, and you did say last night to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short), who raised the point, which you described as one of difficulty and importance, that you would reserve judgment, whether, in the circumstances, you would consider the quite unprecedented implications that arose in connection with last night's Adjournment debate?
This was a balloted debate. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) drew his place in the ballot and you are reported as saying in HANSARD that the hon. Member for Hexham indicated, during the course of questions on Cyprus, earlier in the day, that you had decided to give preference to him. I do not know whether that report is accurate, but I take it that it indicates that you had the power to consider whether the hon. Member for Hexham, having given notice

of his intention to change his subject, should be permitted to do so, whether he should be called, or whether you should call some other hon. Member to move the Adjournment of the House. Last night's debate was quite exceptional and in pursuance of my duty I have to mention one fact in connection with it.
The hon. Member for Hexham had given wide publicity to his intention to raise a number of matters, or at least publicity had been given in the Press, and I have seen no contradiction of the report that he would do so. I have in my possession—but it would be out of order for me to quote it—a publication calling itself the Daily Express, which, I understand, is a widely circulated organ for the dissemination of information, on the front page of which we were told that the hon. Member for Hexham would, on the Adjournment debate on Wednesday, that is, last night, demand the dismissal of the Governor of Cyprus and that he be replaced by Field Marshal Sir Gerald Templer—

Mr. Speaker: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) while he is raising a legitimate point of order, but surely the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) is not responsible for everything that appears about him in the newspapers. I think that the hon. Member has put his point to me, which, I take it, is that as this appeared in a number of newspapers, and a lot of publicity gathered around it, therefore, in the circumstances, I should not have allowed the hon. Member for Hexham to change his subject.
May I say that I went into the matter very carefully? The hon. Member for Hexham informed me during Questions that he wanted to raise another subject and I gave the reasons last night, which I think are sound, that I allowed the change in accordance with the Ruling of my predecessor, who started this business of balloting.
The real point is this. If the hon. Member for Oldham, West challenges my Ruling on that, he knows the proper way in which to do it, but I do not think that he is doing that. I think that he is drawing attention to the difficulty of this whole matter. The hon. Member is, I think, himself a member of the Select Committee on Procedure. Personally, I


should be very happy if the whole matter were examined by that Committee, because it may well be that a procedure which was started immediately after the war, or during the war, I am not sure which, but I think it was 1944 or 1945, is not really applicable to our modern conditions. If that is the view of the House, I would be very happy to consider what the hon. Member has said.
I think that the hon. Member is in this difficulty, that either he should put down a Motion challenging my Ruling if he thinks that it is wrong, although I gave the best Ruling I could according to precedent in the matter, or he should get the Select Committee to go thoroughly into the matter, which, personally, I should like very much.

Mr. Hale: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for not making myself completely clear. was not only not challenging your Ruling but, in so far as it may be permissible for me to do so without impertinence, I was venturing to express agreement with it.
This does raise matters of difficulty. I do not suggest for one moment that the hon. Member for Hexham made communications to the Press, but somebody did; it may have been the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I was venturing to ask whether you would consider the matter further and give a Ruling to the House because, as you know, there is the question of whether the Adjournment debate belongs to the person or the subject; and apparently no final Ruling was given on that matter.
So far as the Press is concerned, I would make no further reference to it, but I must justify myself for having mentioned it by saying that this matter did get a position of great prominence in the paper, on what, I believe, is called the front page, which as far as I know has never before been devoted to a back bencher of either House, except possibly the noble Lord the Marquess of Milford Haven.

Mr. Speir: My I draw attention to the unfortunate predicament in which I found myself yesterday, Sir? I had carefully, at great length, prepared two speeches and in the circumstances I was prevented from delivering either of them. That being so, would it be in order, so that the House may have the pleasure of hearing at least one of my speeches, if I moved the Adjournment now?

Mr. Speaker: No, I do not think that that would be in order.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Leopold Abse, esquire, for Pontypool.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings of the Committee on Town and Country Planning [Money] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.0 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Compensation is a difficult and complicated subject. When my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Captain Corfield) introduced his compensation Bill in February it ran to a modest six pages. The Bill now before the House extends to 77, and that gives some indication of the difficulty which was felt by my right hon. Friend when he was invited to facilitate the passage of a Private Member's Bill on the subject.
It would be ungracious of me, however, not to take this opportunity of congratulating my hon. and gallant Friend on his most effective pathfinding activities in February. They were remarkably well done. Although the Government Bill may not flatter by imitation of form, it certainly does so by imitation of substance, for the underlying aims of the two Measures are very much the same.
Hon. Members will recognise the difficulty about a speech on town and country planning: there is so much to say that one is in great danger of talking too much. I am sure that Lord Silkin felt this when he introduced the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, for he then spoke at very considerable length. In fact, he was on his feet for 2¼ hours. I assure the House right away that there is no danger of my doing that. My horror of listening to a long speech is equalled only by my horror of having to make one. Therefore, I shall try to confine myself to broad essentials.
The great virtue of the Bill now before the House—it is a very real virtue—is that it is generally comprehensible. For a Bill on this difficult subject, I think that it is a positive gem of lucidity. I appreciate, of course, that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House are specialists in this subject. Even so, I am sure that the House as a whole will be grateful to my right hon. Friend and the

Secretary of State for Scotland for the explanatory White Paper. We hope it will be helpful to hon. Members on both sides—it has certainly been helpful to me —because it is always a good thing if those of us who discuss a Bill first of all understand it.
The Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, attempted to deal in a very comprehensive way with the problems of compensation and betterment, problems which until that time had rendered planning on a national scale more or less ineffective. It was a very audacious and far-reaching Measure. The Act had two main elements. The first was to transfer to the State the development rights in all land and to provide for a once-for-all payment of compensation for loss of development value, which was limited to a total figure of £300 million. The second element was that when development was allowed the developer would buy back from the State the development value which he was then realising, and for that he would pay a charge equal to the whole of the development value. That was the development charge itself. It followed from this that when land was bought by compulsion the owner should be paid its value for its existing use only because its value for development had already been taken over and was to be compensated for by the State.
Eleven years ago—in 1947—it was believed by many people in the House and outside it that in the case of voluntary, as opposed to compulsory, land transactions land would change hands on the same basis—at existing use value— because the seller would be compensated and the purchaser for his part would have to pay for the development value of the land through the development charge. In the event, however, it did not work out quite like that. When I say that I am not making a party point at all. The fact is that the development charge itself became about as popular with the public as Lord Montgomery's memoirs have been with some of the generals. It became bitterly unpopular throughout the country. It frustrated land transactions. What happened in practice was that most landowners asked for prices which included value for development, and when the purchaser paid the development charge for the development he was, in effect, paying the development value twice over.
So it came about that at the very time when hon. Members on both sides of the House wanted to see a big expansion of the housing programme the development charge was acting as a brake. It was like a tax which acted to discourage development. On top of this, not many people understood what it was all about anyway; and that is never very helpful. It was, therefore, decided to abolish the development charge and to suspend the payment of the £300 million. The 1954 Act provided that claims against the £300 million would be paid only when the owner suffered either by a planning refusal or by a compulsory acquisition. In this way compensation for compulsory acquisition became existing use value plus the 1947 development value if there happened to be any. That is the present basis of compensation. That, very briefly, paraphrases the recent history of the matter.
That leads me to the Bill. The fact that on compulsory acquisition the element for development value is limited to the 1947 figure means that the price paid on compulsory acquisition of undeveloped land—I emphasise "undeveloped land"—is often very much less than the full market price which the owner would get in a voluntary sale in the open market. So we come to the two-price system, one price for private sales and another for public purchases.
The Franks Committee went out of its way, in paragraph 278 of its Report, to comment on all this, stating:
The evidence which we have received shows that much of the dissatisfaction with the procedures relating to land arises from the basis of compensation. It is clear that objections to compulsory purchase would be far fewer if compensation were always assessed at not less than market value. It is not part of our terms of reference to consider and make recommendations upon the basis of compensation.
The Committee added:
But we cannot emphasise too strongly the extent to which these financial considerations affect the matters with which we have to deal. Whatever changes in procedure are made, dissatisfaction is, because of this, bound to remain.
That is one way of putting it. Most hon. Members have had correspondence from irate members of the public—my right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Scotland certainly have—in which they

have said the same thing, but have put it rather more violently.
The two-price system has not only come to be regarded as an injustice associated with so-called land grabs and the use of the big stick by authority against the citizen. It has also tended to hinder local authorities in selecting the best sites for their purposes. Some of the local authorities have not been prepared to cause injustice; or, for that matter, to incur the odium which comes from the present basis of compensation for compulsory acquisition. My hon. and gallant Friend gave one or two examples of this when he spoke in February, and it was, I think, referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) in his letter to The Times this morning.
Let me add this—and I should like to make this very plain. I think that it would be entirely wrong, and quite misleading, to assume that the grounds for this general sense of grievance are universal; in other words, that compensation is always unjust. I do not think that that is so. In the case of developed land there is, as a rule, not a great deal of reason for complaint, because, quite obviously, it has no value for development beyond its existing use.
The real trouble, of course, arises on the fringes of our towns and cities, where development values have risen—and, very often, very considerably, indeed—since 1947. I do not believe that anybody would wish to dispute that here there is a chasm between the market value of undeveloped land and what is payable on compulsory purchase. Sometimes, indeed, the market value can be as much as three or four times the compulsory purchase price, and I should tell the House that the evidence in the possession of my right hon. Friend indicates that, on average, market value for undeveloped land is at least 40 per cent. greater than the compensation actually paid under the present code—

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman speaks of evidence in the possession of his right hon. Friend, but the unfortunate thing about these strange proceedings is that he has two right hon. Friends in support. Can we have figures for Scotland, or are we to be given them?

Mr. Bevins: I have been very scrupulous in my references to my right hon. Friend and to the Secretary of State. In this context, I referred to my right hon. Friend, because this evidence refers to England and Wales, and not to Scotland. But I have no doubt at all that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will deal with all the points that the hon. Member raises.
This situation, whereby the compensation paid under compulsion is so much less than that paid in free transactions in the market is one that, in the Government's view, cannot be allowed to continue, and the Government feel that the only conceivable solution is to return to market value. This is what the Bill aims to do, and, in a moment or two, I hope to come to the methods by which we seek to do it.
At this point, I should like to refer to something that the Bill does not do. It does not affect the basis of compensation for planning restriction. That remains as it is. That is to say, the owner can claim the amount of the depreciation caused by the refusal, limited to the unexpended balance of the development value as established by his claim under the 1947 Act.
I think that most hon. Members will support me when I say that, nowadays, the country accepts planning restrictions as one of the necessary facts of life. It is certainly a fact that planning refusals have not given rise to that same sense of grievance as that which comes from compulsory purchase. The Government's object is to make planning more effective. What, I think, some people would like within this context is compensation up to the value that there would be if there were no planning control at all, or, to put it another way, the value that their land would have if everybody else's land but their own was subject to planning restriction—in other words, a sort of scarcity value.
I do not, however, think that this provides a good basis for any change—

Mr. J. A. Sparks: May I put to the hon. Gentleman what I think is an important point in relation to the development plans and planning permissions? He is surely aware that the existence of the developing plans has enhanced the market value of many parcels

of land in many parts of the country. I he value is that created by the development plan, and not by the owner, or anybody else who is to get it in compensation.

Mr. Bevins: I do not think that any hon. Member would dispute that, but it is a point to which I shall come presently, if the hon. Member will allow me.
The House will probably agree that, on the whole, we have succeeded in separating these Siamese twins of planning refusals and compulsory purchase in a fairly workmanlike way, and the Bill does nothing at all to change the basis of compensation for planning refusals.
I come, now, to the Bill itself, and I hope that it will meet the convenience of the House if, at this stage, I refer only to its most important Clauses. Part I deals with compensation for compulsory purchase. The present basis of limited compensation is brought to an end by Clause 1. We are left, therefore, with the rules for the assessment of compensation that were laid down in 1919.
What do the 1919 rules say? They say that the value of the land for compensation is to be "the amount which the land, if sold in the open market by a willing seller, might be expected to realise." But what that land would sell for in the absence of compulsory purchase turns, of course, on planning control. That is to say, it turns on planning consents that have already been given, or that might reasonably be expected. Therefore, the question is: what sort of development would be allowed if the land were not required for public purposes?
Clauses 2 to 6 set out the assumptions that are to be made in relation to these planning permissions. These provisions are detailed. They are not easy to understand, and I have no doubt at all that during our later consideration of the Bill we shall need to look at them very carefully. Broadly speaking, however, there are three assumptions contained in this part of the Bill.
First, it is to be assumed that there is permission for the development for which the land is being bought. For example, if it is being bought for housing, the housing planning permission will be taken into account in the valuation. Secondly, it is to be assumed that there is permission for development for the use


for which the land is defined or allocated in the development plan. For example, in an area allocated in the plan to industry, an industrial permission would be taken for granted.
Thirdly, there are some cases in which the provisions of the development plan do not give a clear answer to the question: what kind of development would have been allowed here if the land had not been needed for public purposes? In those cases, we say that is to be assumed that there is permission for development in accordance with a certificate issued by the local planning authority saying what permission might reasonably have been expected if the land were not being bought by a public authority.
I turn now to Clause 7, which the House will probably regard as of some importance. This Clause seeks to protect authorities from paying for values that are created by the very schemes for which the authorities are buying the land. The Clause also protects owners whose land is being bought from depreciation caused by the actual proposal to acquire. The background to the Clause is a complicated one, which derives from the nature of the 1919 rules. In effect, the Clause modifies those rules to some extent to deal with particular cases where, perhaps, land is required by a local authority or other public authority for a purpose for which there is only a public, not a private, demand for the land, and it would be wrong to take into account that den and in assessing the market value. That provision will probably be acceptable to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
In the debate upon the Compensation (Acquisition and Planning) Bill, in February, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government gave an undertaking in connection with the problem of notices to treat which have been hanging fire since 1947, or even earlier. In most cases compensation would be at pre-war values. Under Clauses 12 and 13, local authorities must now either proceed with these purchases or allow the powers to die. If they go on with the purchases the owners have an option to compensation on the basis of the 1954 Act.
Another grievance comes about where land is bought by a local authority for

one purpose and is then sold or used for a completely different and more valuable purpose. We have all seen newspaper reports of cases of that sort. It sometimes happens that land is bought for an open space and is later used for housing, or is bought for housing and is then given an industrial use, either by the local authority or some other authority. This has happened on many occasions in the past, and it will no doubt happen again in the future, because there is no finality about planning.
The return to the market value will not succeed in removing this grievance, because new and unforeseen planning permissions can entirely alter market values. Accordingly, Clauses 14, 15 and 16 provide that in these cases the original owner can claim additional compensation from the authority if the land is sold or used for a more valuable purpose within a period of five years of the acquisition. In this way the owner will get the same compensation as he would have received at the start if the new planning permission had been in force at the start.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: What about the converse case, where the change of plan involves a lower compensation? Can the local authority recover what has been paid?

Mr. Bevins: No. The converse case does not apply. Where a local authority buys the land for one purpose and proceeds to use it for a less valuable purpose it would be grossly unfair to the person whose land had been appropriated if that were the case. When a local authority decides to buy land for a certain purpose it must assume the responsibility for having done so.
I was saying that this new system will mean that the owner will get the same compensation as he would have received at the start if the new planning permission had been in existence at the start.

Mr. Sparks: The bulk of sales in this context are private. What is the position of a private purchaser who pays a price for land based upon certain uses and then, in the course of two or three years, decides to use it for a higher use value, as a result of changes in the development plan? Will he refund to the seller the amount of the increased value of the land?

Mr. Bevins: Of course not. The hon. Member knows the answer to his question. A transaction between two private persons is perfectly free and voluntary on both sides. We are dealing here with the case of compulsory acquisitions, when land is bought for one purpose and is then used for a more valuable one.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Would it not be easy to draft the Clause in reverse and make a provision in favour of a local authority on the same basis?

Mr. Bevins: I have no doubt that that would be quite easy, but it would be very unjust to the people whose land had been appropriated.
I do not need to keep the House for more than a moment on Part II of the Bill, which removes the need for ministerial consent for many local authority land transactions. These provisions are based upon a review carried out jointly by the local authorities and the Government, and represent a further step towards local authority independence. All this will simplify and reduce Governmental controls, as my right hon. Friend said we meant to do in the passage of the Local Government Bill.
Part III gives statutory effect to some further recommendations of the Franks Committee. As I imagine that this part of the Bill will probably command the general support of hon. Members on both sides of the House, at least in principle, I do not propose to dwell upon it at this stage.
I want to say a word about Part IV, however. Here, the most important Clauses are those concerned with what is popularly, or unpopularly, known as planning blight—that is to say, the effect on property of proposals which imply acquisitions at some future date, such as a scheme for a new road, cutting across a property. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have brought to our notice the most distressing instances where owner-occupiers of houses want to move, or are obliged to move, for business or other reasons, only to find that they cannot sell their houses, or can do so only at a very low figure because of the threat of future acquisition, which scares off prospective purchasers.
This is something which no fair-minded Member would wish to tolerate any longer. It is high time that this evil

was eradicated. The Bill provides that the owner-occupier who has been unable to sell his house at a fair price may require—and I emphasise the word "require"—the public authority to buy his house forthwith at a price unaffected by the scheme. I ought to make it clear that this right is limited to the resident owner-occupiers of buildings who are either wholly or partly occupying them as private dwelling-houses.
It may be wondered why this principle is not being extended to owners of investment house property or industrial premises. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland have given this problem a good deal of thought, and they believe that Clause 31 will probably cover about 95 per cent. of the hardship cases which arise. There is no doubt that this hardship falls mainly upon owner-occupiers. Where, however, hardship occurs and the provisions in the Bill do not apply, we are asking local authorities to help by buying ahead of requirements. The local authority associations have indicated to us that they could have dealt with the whole of the problem in this way, provided that loan sanction and any appropriate grants were forthcoming. I should add that we ought not to give the owners of commercial and industrial properties, regardless of hardship, a statutory right to unload on to local authorities at any time they think fit. That would be wrong, and unreasonable.
Finally, I come to the wider issues of compensation and betterment which inevitably will loom large in the debate today. It may well be that there is no serious difference of view between the two sides of the House that a return to market value on compulsory purchase is necessary and, indeed, overdue. In the general sense, I believe that to be so. But it requires no stretch of the imagination to see that where we part company is on the question of betterment. Hon Members opposite believe that increases in compensation should be financed not from public funds but, to use the old-fashioned expression, from the unearned increment that accrues to landowners—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—yes, that is a perfectly understandable point of view and one which is respected by many hon. Members on this side of the House.
All this recalls to mind that remarkable book by Henry George, "Progress and Poverty" and its eloquent advocacy of the single tax. But a number of attempts have been made to deal with betterment for the community. It was tried by Mr. Lloyd George, as he then was, when he introduced his increment value duty in 1909. It was tried by the then Mr. Philip Snowden, in 1931, and it was tried again in 1947. But by 1952 it was clear, at any rate to hon. Members on this side of the House, that that system —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Wait a moment—had fallen down.
I have a sneaking suspicion that it was also clear to many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite, because the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) who, I venture to say, knows as much about this tricky subject as does the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). had this to say during the Committee 9tage proceedings on the legislation in 1952:
We admit that the development charge was open to much criticism and much misunderstanding"—
these are the important words—
and was not, perhaps, one of the happiest inventions of the legal mind in our time."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A; 16th December, 1952, c. 25.]
The right hon. Gentleman was not alone in that view. It was echoed by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), who at one time was associated with the old Ministry of Town and Country Planning.
But let us come up to date, to the present Session, and recall the words of the Leader of the Opposition. Speaking in the debate on the Gracious Speech, the right hon. Gentleman had this to say:
…we say that proper compensation for landlords who suffer from planning should be provided by charging landlords who gain from it, that is to say, out of betterment and not from a further charge on rates and taxes."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 28th October, 1958; Vol 594, c. 19.]
That is all very well, but where does it take us? What does it mean in practical terms? In 1908 and 1909 Mr. Lloyd George and Limehouse had some real significance for many people in this country. But ten years later it was just a pleasant memory for radicals who had

a taste for the rhetoric of Mr. Lloyd George and no more. The fact is that betterment happens to be an exceedingly good subject for oratory, but a very bad one for law. Whatever the validity of the theoretical or academic argument, no British Government has ever yet succeeded in devising an effective system for the recoupment of betterment.
I have read with avidity the pamphlets issued by the Labour Party during the last twelve months. There are a number of them. What do they say about betterment? I have searched high and low, but I cannot find a single word about it. However, I beg hon. Gentlemen opposite not to be inhibited on that account this afternoon. I hope that not only will they make eloquent and theoretical speeches about the evils of this system, but also go a stage further and tell us exactly what they would do about it so that the whole country may know. I commend the Bill to the House

Mr. Mitchison: May I answer two questions which have been put by the Parliamentary Secretary? The first one was: where does this lead us? The second was: in which pamphlet shall I find the answer? I can assure him that the answer to the two questions happens to coincide. There is a pamphlet called "Towards Equality. Labour's Policy for Social Justice." I shall be referring to it shortly in more detail.

Mr. Bevins: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for drawing my attention to that pamphlet. I have read it and I have no doubt that in his speech the hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us exactly what is meant by the words in that pamphlet.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: First. may I associate myself and, I think, my hon. Friends too, with the little pat on the back which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government gave to his English right hon. Friend, the Minister, for producing a White Paper—I think we may also add, to his Scottish hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, too. There are many kinds of White Papers nowadays, but this is a useful one.
This ought not to be a single Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that it is a perfectly lucid Bill and that he knew all about it; but he did not mention one word about its application to Scotland. He did not even tell us how perfectly lucid is the phrase, "dominium utile," and how well known it is to all English hon. Members who will have to read the Bill.
This practice of incorporating Scottish provisions in a Bill which applies also to England is being carried much too far and there is no case for it. Think of the inconvenience to a Scottish authority, or to a Scottish lawyer, in having to trace the Scottish law through a number of extremely involved and complex subsections in a United Kingdom Statute, and that on a very complicated matter. Think—this will appeal a little more to right hon. Gentlemen opposite—of hon. Members of this House who will have to deal with this Bill during its Committee stage.
As was the case with the rent legislation, and as has been the case with other Standing Committees, the Committee which will deal with the Bill will be a mixed Committee containing a small number of hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies. That will be in accordance with our usual arrangements. The result will be that those Scottish Members will have to listen to an enormous amount of stuff affecting only England: and hon. Members representing English constituencies will have to listen to Scottish eloquence—and very good it is too—on matters affecting only Scotland. That is a pure waste of time.
This sort of thing used not to occur during the time when the former Secretary of State for Scotland was in office. Whether his manner in the Cabinet was more forceful, or whatever the reason, he did at any rate see that there was a good and proper division between English and Scottish legislation. He did not lump it all into one Measure to the inconvenience of everyone concerned and with, I hasten to add, a certain amount of injustice to Scotland. That is something which no doubt my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies—including, I hope, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes)—will develop if they have the good fortune to catch Mr. Speaker's eye.
Now I return to the English part of the Bill. I shall not mention the part which affects Scotland because I do not understand it. I do not understand phrases like "dominium utile" and "feuduty" and I do not propose to venture to discuss that difficult subject. It is true that the Government have taken the opportunity in Part II of the Bill to introduce some proposals about Ministerial control and in Part III some of the recommendations of the Franks Committee. We shall have to look at these in Committee and I propose to say no more about them.
The main object of the Bill is, to use the words in the White Paper,
a return to market value ' compensation for land which is compulsorily acquired.
The Bill seeks in that respect to correct a grave and deliberate mistake made by the Government in 1952 when the present Prime Minister was the Minister of Housing and Local Government. We forcefully and repeatedly warned the Prime Minister of the mistake and told him that his proposals would lead to injustice and resentment, and would not work. Now that the Government have admitted our criticisms and seek to rectify their error, we shall not vote against this very limited Bill, but I shall have to point out in general terms not only that it has faults but also, because it is a limited Bill, that it does not in this form remedy or seek to remedy the injustice between the community as a whole and landlords generally.
I shall substantiate what I have said about the Government's mistake and our warning. There will be no mistake this time about what the Government did say. The 1947 Act provided, in effect, as the Parliamentary Secretary has explained, for the purchase by the community of all development values. We all know what they are; they represent that part of the value of the land which is its prospective value for future use, as distinct from the use to which it is being put at present.
It was for that purpose that Section 51 of the Act limited the purchase price on compulsory acquisition to the full present-use value and it was assessed, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, under the rules of the 1919 Act, because prospective value was to be paid for by way


of compensation out of the £300 million fund irrespective of what parcels of land were compulsorily acquired and when. The result was that the price for land sold was on the same basis, whether the land was sold privately or was compulsorily acquired. So far as the law could deal with the matter, that was what it did.
We are now told that it did not work out that way and that in practice land did not change hands at existing-use value. Landowners, said the Parliamentary Secretary, asked a price which included development charge and people then resented having to pay development charge afterwards. There is a good deal in that; but was it resentment against the development charge, or was it, as it ought to have been, resentment against the landlords who asked a price which was more Khan existing-use value and which included development charge, which they were not intended to recover anyway? It seems a curious criticism and a comment, not on the deficiencies of the Act but on what appears to have been the grasping spirit of some of the selling landlords. 'That was the result, and I shall not go into that point any further.
In November, 1952, the Government decided to abolish the system which I will call the pooling of development values. They had to consider the compensation to he paid on compulsory acquisition, that is to say, what price should he paid both for the present value and for the value for prospective use. They kept full market value for present-use value. There has never been anything else. It exists now and it will exist when the Bill becomes law. There is no question about it today. The Government also had to consider what to allow for development value. They quite definitely chose not to allow current market value. They allowed something different, generally something distinctly less. The something different is stated in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 2 of the White Paper on the Bill and it is Compensation on the basis of the 1947 value.
Of course, the further we get from 1947 without increasing the prices and increasing the development, the greater is the difference between 1947 value and the current market value on acquisition. If hon. Members will consult the Financial Memorandum to the Bill they will find

that, over all, the present difference is about one quarter of the compensation paid. Some of the compensation will be present-use value; that is not altered. Accordingly, the proportion of the compensation which represents development value will be considerably more than one quarter. It is a large and widening gap.
There is no doubt that it was a deliberate choice. There was a White Paper at the time, Cmd. 8699. Paragraph 30 of it says:
In practice the choice must lie between acquisition at current market value and acquisition, as proposed, at the current existing-use value, plus the 1947 development value…The Government have decided that the better course would be to base the compensation on the current existing-use value plus the 1947 development value.
The Government and the Tory Party deliberately rejected the current market value of the land and took instead that other basis, which is the present one. There were two Bills to carry out the White Paper. Throughout the debates, the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister referred again and again to the difference between the compensation he proposed and the full current market value which the Bill now seeks to introduce as the basis. I shall quote from him. On the first Bill we get:
Now, of course, it might be argued that values should be paid for as they accrue—in other words, compensation should not be fixed to 1947 value.
That is the argument which the Parliamentary Secretary has just been putting. Other hon. Members have also put it. He went on:
That is a fair point"—
I am glad to hear that from the Prime Minister—
but there are two answers to that. First, in many cases these values will have been created by the efforts of the community, and secondly, the land owners have had no expectation of receiving more than the 1947 claim.
That second reason is a question of history. Lower down in the same column we come to the conclusion:
In future when compensation is paid either for compulsory purchase or on refused planning permission, it will be on the basis not of the value at the day but as laid down in the 1947 valuation. I say that is a fair' thing because of the first reason that I have given.
That reason was:
In many cases these values will have been created by the efforts of the community."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1952: Vol. 508, c. 1116.]


That reason is no temporary one. just as true today as it was then.
I come to the second quotation, on the 1954 Bill. The same right hon. Gentleman, now Prime Minister but then Minister of Housing and Local Government, said:
It would have been all very much simpler, of course, if the Government had decided to pay compensation according to development value at the time of the refusal…
That is market value. Although he was talking about refusal of planning permission, the point is exactly the same. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
I do not think many people wanted that … it would ruin planning.
Again, a little later the right hon. Gentleman differed from
some people who dislike anything but the open market value as the price of land."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 44–57.]
How many of them do I see sitting opposite me today? The Prime Minister had plenty of warning that he was creating a two-price system—one price for compulsory acquisition and another in the open market—and warning that such a system would certainly lead to trouble and could not work. On the second Bill, now the 1954 Act, which dealt with compensation, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) said this on the same day, 15th March, 1954:
…what the landowner gets for his land will depend entirely on the chance of who happens to be the purchaser, whether it happens to be the local authority or a private individual. That is an extraordinary price structure to set up. I cannot see how a price structure of that kind—that two-tier price system—if imposed upon the country…
By the party opposite, I might add—
…can possibly survive.
My hon. and learned Friend went on to refer to a letter in The Times from Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve. Sir Malcolm said that compensation on 1947 values would never work in the case of compulsory purchase. He said that The Times said:
There is nothing in the Bill to suggest that this difference between free and forced land sales may not in the long run wreck the whole basis of the scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 70.]
Right hon. and hon. Members opposite cannot complain that they were not

warned. My hon. Friend the Member for It is Widnes (Mr. MacColl) described the true two-price system as
a shocking injustice to perpetuate between one landowner and another."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 79.]

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Mitchison: Hon. Members say "hear, hear" now, but who is responsible? I dare say the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) was not, as he did not happen to be in this House at the time, but his party is directly responsible for having set up the two-price system and introducing this injustice, which did not exist under the 1947 Act. Does the hon. Member want to interrupt me?

Mr. David Price: indicated dissent.

Mr. Mitchison: Hon. Members opposite voted for this two-price system. They were led, I suppose, or seduced, or driven by the Prime Minister and voted in favour of the two-price system and against the idea of market value compensation. Now look how keen they all are on it. It is not surprising that when the hon. and gallant Member for Gloucestershire. South (Captain Corfield) introduced a Bill and it was discussed on 21st February this year, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East and my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes taunted them collectively and individually with their complete volte-face. What my hon. and learned Friend said bears repetition. He said:
The two-price system is the product of the Conservative Government. It was voted for by hon. Members opposite who have now had the audacity to speak against the very thing for which they voted in the Government Lobby We on this side of the House voted against it and spoke against it, pointing out precisely the kind of difficulties which have been enumerated in speech after speech by hon. Member's opposite in the course of today's debate.
I expect we shall hear them all again today. What was the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Housing and Local Government to reply? This is what he said:
When the Government decided, in 1952, to abolish the development charge they deliberately decided to retain the restricted basis for compulsory acquisition—that is, market value for the existing use together with the development value which the land had in 1947. The Government did that recognising


that, since we were freeing private sales, there were likely to be difficulties in what has come to be called the two price system which would result. The Government believed at the time…
Here we come to the get-out, or the then get-out—there may be another one today—
…that we must retain the restricted basis for compulsory acquisition, at any rate for a time."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1958; Vol. 582, c. 1616, 1623, 1624.]
There is the get-out, but in 1952, and on the two Bills in 1953 and 1954, nothing whatever was said about a temporary retention or a temporary solution. The reason given by the Prime Minister, which I have quoted already, was:
these values will have been created by the efforts of the community…
In his opinion the restricted compensation was a fair thing. I agree that it was a quite illogical reason because the values so created are also reflected in private sales, but at least it is as true now as it was then; and the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), in objecting to this port of the Bill, regarded it as
…the acceptance for all time of 1947…values."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 15th March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 87.]
That was in the debate on the 1954 Bill. It has been left for the right hon. Gentleman six years later to hint that it was intended only as a temporary settlement. Not a word was said about that at the time.
There is the case and it is proved—a mistake, obstinacy, no heed to warnings, and in the result, injustice and resentment. Then we get the usual Tory claim to credit for repairing their own errors and undoing their own misdeeds. How long have we got to go on with this kind of thing? How short is going to be the memory of people who have suffered that injustice, and either suffered it before it could be remedied—there has been some considerable interval in time—or now, and are invited to be grateful to the very people who were responsible for it?
I will not discuss this Bill in detail at this stage. It has a number of faults and there is one underlying trouble coming from what is commonly called "floating value". Compensation is to be assessed on the footing of certain planning permissions, that is to say in effect, on potential value on certain assumptions. That will certainly result in over valuation. If the Parliamentary Secretary, in

addition to reading Henry George, had also read the Uthwatt Report, he would have found in paragraph 23 a reference to land on the fringes of towns where this kind of thing really matters. That paragraph said:
If we assume a town gradually spreading outwards, where the fringe land on the north. south, east and west, is all equally available for development, each of the owners of such fringe land to the north, south, east and west will claim equally that the next development will 'settle' on his land. Yet the average annual rate of development demand of past years may show that the quantum of demand is only enough to absorb the area of one side within such a period of the future as commands a present value.
Just the same point arises within an area—one of the fringes—as between various owners of parcels of land, and the Uthwatt Report goes on to point out that
the sum of the probabilities as estimated greatly exceeds the actual possibilities…the 'global' valuation
—that is, the valuation of the area as a whole, which is what matters to the acquiring authority—
must he less than the aggregate of the individual valuations when considered separately.
I may add that it is not a question of estimating probabilities and of how accurate the estimate may be. That is fully allowed for in the Uthwatt Report.

Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: Would not the hon. and learned Member agree that where land is to be compulsorily acquired for public purposes, the value has been settled upon that parcel of land and therefore its value is quite easily ascertainable?

Mr. Mitchison: No, I am afraid that I cannot agree with that. I will not trouble the House by reading the adjoining paragraphs of the Uthwatt Report, but, if I may respectfully say so to the hon. Member, I prefer both the reasoning and the conclusions of the Uthwatt Report. That point was very obviously present to the Committee, as appears, I think, even from the language which I have quoted.
We shall have to examine the point carefully in Committee and perhaps we shall have to examine it often, because cases differ, but, put very shortly, the difficulty is that, as the Bill now stands, the market value of an area of land to be acquired is necessarily less than the sum


of the market values of the parcels comprising that area. I see one hon. Member opposite looking puzzled, and I agree that this is a very difficult matter but I remind him of the composition of the Uthwatt Committee. It ought not to be lightly disregarded. It consisted of Mr. Justice Uthwatt, the present Master of the Rolls, one Past President of the Chartered Surveyors Institution and one Vice-President, and although the Vice-President made one or two reservations, I do not think, speaking from memory, that there are any reservations on this point. We have to pay some attention to that weight of professional opinion.
There are two other short points which I should mention as matters of comparative detail in the Bill. First, we shall obviously pursue the question of a change of intention afterwards. If we assume, as we must assume, that the local authorities genuinely intended to use the land for a certain purpose at the time of acquisition, and if a change of intention one way is to be corrected in favour of the vendor, is there any moral reason why a change of intention which operates the other way should not be corrected in favour of the acquiring authority? If I may put that in more human terms, it means in favour of the ratepayers.
I remind hon. Members of the sentence used by the Prime Minister and the reference to what he called "values created by the efforts of the community." I hope that hon. Members opposite will not forget this observation by the Prime Minister. He is their leader, or so I believe. It is also used in a rather narrower sense as to values which arise from planning and its legal consequences. Naturally enough, public authorities which are called on to pay compensation at prices which include betterment have felt it right and advisable that they should recover the element of betterment, not always from the particular people who received the price nor always from land in the same area, but somehow, and there is moral justice in that.
When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said what the Parliamentary Secretary has quoted, he was surely saying something which should commend itself to everyone. There can be no sense in allowing landlords to have

it both ways. There can be no moral justice in allowing some landlords to benefit under certain circumstances and then, when the situation is reversed, refusing to permit the acquiring authority to have a similar right.
When landlords gain on increasing values, should they be allowed to keep the whole profit of the efforts of the community and then, when they have to sell, should they also be entitled to collect compensation for the results of those community efforts? That is what it amounts to.
There have been various devices to put this moral principle into effect. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned some of them. There was the direct charge under, I think, the Snowden Finance Act; there was the set-off, the purchase and resale of adjoining property, which I think they called recoupment, and finally there was the 1947 Act, which dealt with the matter, for good or for ill, and removed the whole question from being a local question to a national administration. When the Tories scrapped the machinery of that Act they neither left nor provided any means of recovering betterment, and we gather from the Parliamentary Secretary today that they do not want such a means. That does not altogether surprise me. I have seen the wind blowing that way for some time. That was one of the reasons that we divided against those two Bills.
This Bill, of course, still leaves the gap unfilled, and it has been with great difficulty that we have resisted a very natural wish to put down the same reasoned Amendment again and to divide on it. We have decided not to do so, for two reasons. The first, which I have already mentioned, is that this is a limited Bill which seeks to remedy an error of the Government against which we warned them at the time. We should feel it hard on a dying Government to vote against them for accepting our rebuke, even if the leave the same gap unfilled; the moribund penitent has always been a figure who merits compassion.
The second reason goes beyond any question of Parliamentary procedure and I want to make it quite clear, even if in so doing I open the door to the usual Tory manoeuvre. Indeed, we have had the beginnings of it from the Parliamentary Secretary. Whenever the Tories have


a thoroughly weak case, as they have on this point, they spend most of the time in discussing Labour proposals and they do not forget the apocryphal maxim that "if you have no defence, abuse the plaintiff's attorney."

Captain F. V. Corfield: Would not the hon. and learned Member agree that that is exactly what he has been doing in the past hour?

Mr. Mitchison: The difference is that I have a very strong case.

Mr. D. Price: Could we hear it?

Mr. Mitchison: I must go back for a moment to the Uthwatt Report, because in that Report, in dealing with betterment, the Committee made proposals which were not finally those adopted in the 1947 Act. In paragraph 293 the Committee recommended that
in view of the difficulties inherent in the present system of collecting betterment under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, and its failure to produce practical results "—
I see the Parliamentary Secretary nodding, but that Act was passed and came into operation under the so-called National Government, which was Tory-controlled—
that system should be abandoned in favour of our scheme for a periodic levy on increases in annual site values.
I need not go into the details of the scheme, but
Broadly stated"—
as the Report put it in paragraph 313—
our recommendation is that there should be a levy in respect of the increase in annual site value of each hereditament as revealed at each quinquennial rating revaluation over the datum annual site value (i.e., the annual site value as first determined for the purposes of the scheme).
The Committee recommended, tentatively, a levy of 75 per cent.
I remind the House of the composition of that Committee, and though the Vice-President made some reservations on this particular point, whether we include him or not, a Committee of that composition is hardly likely to make impracticable or wild proposals. The Committee also recommended powers of compulsory purchase for recoupment, and the possibilities of purchase in advance of requirements are matters which we shall have to. consider in Committee on the Bill, if we can.
The scheme was not adopted in the 1947 Act, and the provisions of that Act were repealed by the 1953 and 1954 Acts, against which we divided on reasoned Amendments. But what has happened since them? In 1955 the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income made its final Report in which the minority recommended the taxation of capital gains. Though most of the arguments in the Minority Report are primarily directed to questions of the increase of shareholdings, and so on, there is no doubt that those producing that Report intended to include land, if only because in paragraph 68 they recommended the exemption from a capital gains tax of gains arising out of the sale of owner-occupied houses to the extent of one residence for each taxpayer.
In 1956 the Labour Party published and adopted a pamphlet called "Towards Equality. Labour's Policy for Social Justice." In page 26 of the pamphlet it said:
The large tax-free gains which can be made by dealings in industrial securities and real estate can be partly tackled by means of taxation. The arguments for bringing capital gains within the tax System have been fully, and in our opinion conclusively, stated in the Minority Report of the Royal Commission on Taxation. There are many small property transactions, however, which it would he difficult and, from the point of view of equality, unnecessary to tax. One instance is the buying and selling of owner-occupied houses. We should not propose to tax capital gains arising from these and other small transactions.
Hon. Members will notice two points. One is that the Uthwatt Committee recommended a periodical levy and the Minority Commission a levy on unrealised profits. The statement, I agree, is uncommittal. I too shall be uncommittal. This is very much a question on which one wants the benefit of professional advice and Departmental experience. Some people have suggested a second Uthwatt Commission.
The second point is that such a levy on betterment by way of taxation would accrue, to national funds and not directly to local authorities. The answer to this is obvious. My party is also committed to a general review of the financial relations between the central Government and local authorities of which this question quite surely and obviously forms part. It must be obvious that on betterment no Opposition can provide a


detailed scheme without more light on the whole matter. The Labour Party has gone far beyond any precedent in detailing its proposals on many other matters and, in the interests of democracy, in publishing them in advance of an election. The party opposite remains in its usual elegant and shady obscurity.

Mr. Bevins: I am most grateful to the reference made by the hon. and learned Gentleman to the Labour Party pamphlet on equality. I have forgotten the date. I should like to ask him, because I think it is very pertinent to what he is saying, whether that proposal refers only to the taxation of realised betterment.

Mr. Mitchison: Of course it does. I have just pointed that out, and that the Uthwatt Report referred to a periodical levy. If I am asked, I will repeat it to the hon. Gentleman. I have just said that he really cannot expect an Opposition to produce detailed proposals on matters of this sort, and he will not get them from me or anyone else.

Mr. Bevins: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the recommendation of the Uthwatt Committee went very much further in its application than what is proposed by the Labour Party?

Mr. Mitchison: I think that in some ways it did, but my comment on that is that, if the Uthwatt Committee, composed as it was, considered its proposal practicable, is it really an objection to say that a proposal which in the hon Gentlemen's view does not go so far cannot be practicable? I should like him to think about that one.
I have just told the hon. Gentleman that the party opposite remains—I rather like this phrase—in its usual elegant and shady obscurity. The light is not yet fully cast on how best to recover for the community values that its own efforts have created, values that have not been created by the individual landowner concerned. In this proposal to tax capital gains I see something that is both practicable and just. The path towards social justice and equality is very often obscured and is sometimes very hard. But, surely, in the judgment of all right-minded people, that is the way to go, and the dawn lies that way.

5.17 p.m.

Captain F. V. Corfield: We have listened to a delving into the past by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I propose to get on with the future and try to do so rather more speedily. I was glad that the hon and learned Gentleman mentioned and quoted from the Uthwatt Report, because had his party read that Report a little more carefully when it introduced the 1947 Act it might not have brought the whole planning system into discredit and necessitated the 1954 Act. I can only say that when the hon. and learned Gentlemen's party learns to profit by its lessons it may have a chance of getting back at the next General Election, but not before.
Naturally, I welcome the Bill because, as my hon. Friend said, it follows very closely the principles that I have been advocating and which I tried to embody in a somewhat shorter Private Member's Bill. My welcome is all the greater because I personally know the tremendous legislative burden which my right hon. and hon. Friend have carried in the last two Sessions. I think it all the more creditable that they should now come forward with what is clearly a complicated and may be a controversial Bill.
As far as my own proposals went, I think it safe to say that the main criticism of them was that of oversimplification. I do not think that anyone would accuse my right hon. Friend of that in the present Bill. One of my colleagues came to me the other day and said. "I have got the Bill and the Explanatory Memorandum and I am now looking for the memorandum which explains the Explanatory Memorandum." I do not think that it is as bad as that. However, it is complicated and there are many points which, I hope, my right hon. Friend will explain later. Most of them are more appropriate to the Committee stage.
I want to concentrate on the relatively few matters which seem to affect the main objectives at which both my right hon. Friend and I have aimed. There is an analogy between proposals of this sort, which are altering the basis of compensation, and budgetary proposals. It is, therefore, necessary to provide against individuals, or possibly local authorities, carrying out evasive action between the


publication of the Bill and the Royal Assent. My right hon. Friend was right, therefore, to make the main provisions take effect from the date on which the Bill was published.
That brings me to a consideration of Clauses 12 and 13, which are designed to deal with old, long outstanding notices to treat. We have discussed old notices to treat on more than one occasion and it is not necessary for me to go into the details again today, but the fact that notices to treat which were issued before the 1947 Act are still outstanding means that when the transactions are eventually completed compensation will be based on 1939 values.
In my right hon. Friend's proposals, those notices to treat will not be affected until after the Bill has come into force, S3 that there will be a period, between the publication of the Bill and its receiving the Royal Assent, during which local authorities will be able to take action to bring the notices to treat not under the modern law, but under the pre-1947 law. U it is right that the main proposals of the Bill—the introduction of market value subject to the development plan, and so on, as a basis for compensation—should be dated with effect from 29th October, it must also be right in respect of old notices to treat.
A further consideration which arises from that is that the having of old notices to treat still with us, some of them twenty years old, emphasises the fact that in many cases of compulsory acquisition there is a considerable delay between the service of the notice to treat and the next stage in the process of acquisition. It may well be that a notice to treat served in the last year or so, prior to the publication of the Bill, will also remain outstanding for a number of years. There is a danger that in the next five or ten years we shall have two codes of compensation operating side by side.
It is precisely that sort of thing, that two-tier system—although the tiers will be different—which gives rise to those very genuine feelings of hardship and dissatisfaction all round. With those considerations in mind, and remembering that allegations have already been made —I do not know how true they are—suggesting that local authorities have made a rush to issue notices to treat since

I first raised the matter, in February, it may be worth considering whether a notice to treat is the right criterion on which to decide whether a transaction comes within the old or new provision.
There is much to be said for the expression which I used in my Bill, to the effect that it should come into operation to cover all cases where the compensation had neither been agreed nor determined. That would get over what may be a very grave difficulty, the continuance over the next few years of two parallel systems, often in considerable contrast and bound to give rise to much ill-feeling.
I welcome the terms of Clause 31, which, in a fashion not dissimilar from my own idea, attempts to deal with the very difficult problem of "planning blight", or "sterilisation", as it is sometimes called. I wonder whether the definition of "resident owner-occupier is wide enough in this case. There is something to be said for making that definition somewhat similar to that of owner-occupier in the Slum Clearance (Compensation) Act which is now part of the Housing Act, 1957. There is something to be said for including the immediate members of the owner-occupier's family.
I am not entirely satisfied with the reasons given by my hon. Friend for excluding commercial property and the land owner. I fully appreciate that the greatest hardship will arise in cases of owner-occupation where the owner has to move—possibly on being posted abroad in the Services or because of commercial activities, or having to move to another part of the country—when his only means of obtaining another house is to realise the capital value of his existing house.
Apart from the dangers, which my hon. Friend rightly mentioned, of commercial businesses trying to "unload", as he put it, when they were not doing very well, I foresee cases where hardship of exactly the same order and exactly the same type as that which arises with the owner-occupation of residential property will occur.
I had a case in my constituency which illustrated this. A couple ran a business in a property which became subject to planning blight. Shortly afterwards, the husband died and his widow became crippled with arthritis. She was ordered


by her doctor on no account to attempt to carry on the business. What capital she had—it represented all her savings—was tied up almost indefinitely in that little business. That was about four years ago. As far as I know, no further action has yet been taken and even if she eventually gets the market value, her personal representatives are much more likely to benefit than she is.
There is a case for considering a test of hardship. I know that my right hon. Friend does not like a test of hardship in these cases, as he says in his Memorandum, but I am not sure that it is as difficult to administer as is made out. This is a concept with which the courts are very familiar through rent control and so on. It is a concept which my right hon. Friend himself has recently used in the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1958.
In the case I have just mentioned, and in that of the landlord who, for a special reason, needs to cash in his capital, there is good ground for suggesting an extra test of hardship so that there would be the right to force a local authority to purchase—in certain limited circumstances. I know that local authorities are given power to purchase, but that need not be the same thing by a long way, because if a local authority does not like a price it has only to say that it will not purchase. It holds the whip hand very strongly.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider this matter. I know that we are given the analogy with long-dated Government stock, but that has the great advantage that there is a definite date for redemption, while with some cases of planning blight there is no indication of the date on which development will take place and on which the compensation will accrue due.
I am very glad that the Government have adopted the principle whereby the owner gets increased compensation when the purposes for which the land is originally acquired are changed in such a manner as to add to the value. The Opposition have made great play of the fact that this does not work both ways. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to forget that the whole administrative set-up is very heavily weighted against the individual. It is the local

authority which will decide what it wants land for, and it can decide within fairly wide limits what planning permission to give, which sets the value.
However these Measures are worded, it is, in fact, compulsory acquisition, and the power is on the one side only. With that great power in the hands of local authorities, I do not think that it is unreasonable that they should make up their minds, and, having done so, if they then use the land for some less useful purpose, that they should bear the loss. This could be a very useful sanction in some of the shilly-shallying which goes on occasionally in connection with planning alterations.
I want to mention now two points which I tried to deal with in my Bill, but which I do not think that the Government Bill covers, at any rate, not directly. The first is compensation to the tenant of agricultural land. If a local authority or some acquiring authority, whatever it may be, definitely acquires the tenant's interest, it will, as I understand, pay the market value of the tenant's interest, in so far as that can be determined. I understand, however, that the normal practice in these matters is not to acquire the tenant's interest direct, but to acquire the landlord's interest and leave it to the tenant to obtain his compensation from the landlord under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948.
The Agricultural Holdings Act puts on the compensation a maximum of two years' rent. In these days, with security of tenure and the great difficulty of finding a farm to rent, I suggest that the value of a tenancy of an agricultural holding is very much greater than that in most cases. I know that this is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government will consult with him and consider whether there is not a possible way of overcoming that particular problem in this Bill.
The second matter on which I think we should have further thoughts is the whole subject of compensation in slum clearance. As I understand, the basis of compensation in slum clearance remains precisely the same, namely, the value of the site. It is true that the value of the


site will be determined against the basis of market value, but, very often, the value of a particular site is said to be so small, the site not being capable of development as a single entity, that it is worth virtually nothing. Many nominal compensation payments of 10s. or £1 are made. I cannot see that there is anything in the Bill to alter this.
Where the land is to be redeveloped for housing, it will still be said that the sites are too small to have a value, whether it be market value or any other value; but I really do not believe that it is possible today to persuade anyone who is the victim of slum clearance that £1 or 10s. is a reasonable sum to be given for the site of a house. This whole concept has been gravely abused. I had a case very recently in which exactly that argument was used. A man was given £1 for the site of his house, on the ground that it was too small for development. It was turned into a car park, divided into three nice little car parks, and let to the same man for his office staff at £10 per year per park. This sort of thing will he st3pped by the Bill, but the basic problem will remain.
In many cases, about 40 or 60 small sires make up an aggregate area of very considerable value. Slum clearance areas are often situated near the centre of the older towns in areas where the land has very great value indeed. I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of man to devise a system of valuation which will enable the aggregate value to be apportioned between the original owners, on the one hand, and the local authority, to some extent, on the other. I freely admit that the local authority has, by exercising its powers of clearance, and so forth, created a good deal of the value, but it cannot possibly be said to have created all, or even by far the greater part of the value. There are cases where the value of a plot purchased for £60 may well be £2,000, or £3,000. It is quite absurd to say that that has all been created by the local authority or by anybody else. One cannot create that value unless one starts with the land, and the land, after all, has been taken from individual owners at, perhaps, £1 a plot.
I want now to say a word or two about betterment. We all recognise the sound, ness of the theory—it is a theory—that, where land is increased in value as a

result of public expenditure, the public should have some right to reimbursement, but none of the systems put forward to achieve this has ever really produced a workable or sound answer. Nobody has ever attempted to divide the effect on betterment of private development from the effect of public development, and I do not believe that it is possible to do so.
Moreover, nobody has ever taken "worsenment" into account. It is absolute nonsense to imagine that all development is beneficial. It is not. A great deal of development has very deleterious effects on neighbouring property. A noticeable example, of course, is what happens when aerodromes and places of that kind are built. Unless we take all those matters into consideration in any system, I do not think that it is a sound system. Until we can produce a sound system which will really work fairly, I do not believe that it is right to proceed with a system which throws the burden on a few individuals selected by the chance of whether or not their land is required for public purposes.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I should like to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman's answer to this point on the failure of efforts to collect betterment. In paragraph 30 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which refers to Clause 7 (3) of the Bill, it is explained that
When land is acquired compulsorily"—
and there is a development scheme effected by the plan—
the scheme for which it is taken may enhance the value of other land held by the owner of the land taken. The subsection provides that this enhancement shall be set off against the compensation paid for the land taken.
Why should it be more difficult to assess other forms of enhancement than it is to assess that one? To assess the enhancement referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum is regarded as practicable. Why is it impossible and impracticable to assess the others?

Captain Corfield: I am not for a moment saying that it is impossible. All I am saying is that nobody, not even the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) in his letter to The Times this morning, has yet put forward a system which, in my opinion, does that. Until we have such a system, I think that


it is absolutely essential that we should not throw the burden of the injustice on individuals.
In this argument about betterment, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering quoted the Leader of the Opposition as saying, amongst other things, that we must find this money from an imposition on the increment of the land value and not throw it on the rates. I suggest that the betterment effect of any development is essentially local. It does not affect a wide area. The only tax we have in this country which begins to reflect the effect of development is rates. I know that it is unpopular politically to say that one should throw it on the rates, but if one is really sincere about this system, the rate is, I believe, the only possible kind of tax on which it could be based.

5.39 p.m.

Mrs. Freda Corbet: I am pleased to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Gloucestershire, South (Captain Corfield). I remember an occasion over a year ago when he sought to move an Instruction to the Select Committee on the London County Council (General Powers) Bill. At that time, the council wanted to pay, in respect of certain long-standing notices to treat, more compensation than was generally enforceable at law throughout the land. That is why I like to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am pleased to be able to say on behalf of my authority that we welcome this provision in the Bill and that we are always glad to obey the law of the land, but we in no way wish to be singled out.

Captain Corfield: I am sure that the hon. Lady would not take it as anything but a compliment when I suggest that perhaps it is not inappropriate that the great City and County of London should set an example.

Mrs. Corbet: I do not want to give away the secrets of the council, but the hon. and gallant Member would find, if he looked into individual cases, that a certain amount of generosity is exercised by the council. I was talking about having one law for the County of London and another for the rest of the country.
I am also rather pleased to be able in some slight measure to underline what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has just

said about slum-clearance compensation as affecting small parcels of land. I do not know of any payments as low as those mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman because it just does not happen in my part of the world. I know, however, of areas that are valued very highly, at, say, £10,000 or £15,000 an acre, and a small house 1–40th of that in size being valued at £70.
I consider that to be wrong and I took the matter up with the valuers and discovered that this was something that the law laid down. I should be glad, therefore, if the Minister would consider the possibility of doing justice to the small individual owners of houses. I understand that if the land on which the houses stand has been in one ownership, that owner would receive the proper value of the land. I feel that that is a matter which ought to be looked into.
I should like to mention a few points on behalf of my authority which will probably be echoed by local authorities throughout the country. One is the age-old problem that none of us likes anything that will put an extra expense upon us, even though we do, as in this case, recognise the justice of the Measure abolishing the double set of values.
Incidentally, my authority has sometimes paid more than the market value and sometimes less than the market value, but, on balance, it feels that it does not cost it more money. Local authorities all over the country will be affected and the Government know that there is one way in which they can help. If they cannot give them any betterment, they could be a little more generous with their grants to local authorities. Local authorities today are pretty well over-burdened.
Authorities which are concerned with operating under this Measure are worried that land which is required for certain purposes will have an enhanced value because of the local authorities' own operations. In other words, houses will be built in parts of the country which would not have been built originally had it not been for the local authority's operations. Industry will go there not as a result of the operations but as a result of the encouragement, persuasion, and so on, that the local authorities will exert in order to get industry to their areas.
We feel that the Government should consider this matter to see whether they


can devise a way in which this extra value will not have to be paid. This is a serious matter because some of the authorities which are acting as receiving authorities and which are buying the land—I understand that up to the moment they are not receiving a grant in respect of the purchase of the land, but only in respect of the provision of water and drainage—are often very chary about entering into these schemes.
It has been necessary for my authority to add extra inducements to get them to carry on. For example, we have agreed on three occasions to make an additional contribution to the receiving authority by granting loans for five years at low rates of interest, lower than the rates which would be paid on the market. We have undertaken to make contributions towards the rate fund, and until the houses that are built are let we pay the interest on the capital cost, including the land cost of houses under construction. Therefore, not only will the receiving authorities have a bigger cost to bear— and often the product of their penny rate is very low—but so also will my authority, which uses these incentives to induce receiving authorities to carry on with very essential town development plans.
I appreciate the reason for Clause 14, although it is a little unfortunate that because one local authority did a certain thing the rest of the local authorities should be penalised. After all, in town development it is artificial stimulation by deliberate effort on the part of local authorities which creates the values that make it possible to put factories in areas where they would not have gone and where, by no stretch of the imagination, could an owner have obtained the industrial and commercial value for his land. It seems unfair that such a burden should be imposed on public funds. The Ministry realises that this is not fair, and for that reason comprehensive development areas and the new towns have been excluded. The Minister should realise that the same thing applies in town development.
I have one special question to put to the Minister. It may be that I am mistaken, but I am informed that under Clause 36 (2) the grant which it is proposed to make to highway authorities

would not, as the Clause is drafted, enable the Minister to give grants to the L.C.C. I am asked to say that perhaps the Minister might have another look at this matter to make sure that the council has not been inadvertently omitted because of repeals made by the Local Government Act, 1929. I hope that at some time the Minister will give me an assurance that he wishes the council to benefit from this Clause in the same way as other improvement authorities.
Finally, regarding the requirement that an applicant for town planning permission should either notify the land owner or advertise his intentions, my authority welcomes the fact that the Minister recognises that there is a problem here when a town planning authority is receiving applications in respect of the same piece of land by any number of would-be developers who have not the slightest user interest in the land at that moment. We are not certain how effective this proposal will be, and it appears, therefore, that it will need to be examined rather carefully in Committee.
Having made those remarks, to which I hope the Minister has paid attention, I should like to thank him for having dealt with some of the matters which have been raised by the local authority in the past.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. David Price: It is always a pleasure to follow an hon. Member who speaks with such authority as the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) does about the problems of the great City of London. I have very great sympathy with her in her plea for adequate compensation for the owner-occupiers of slum properties, and I hope that in Committee we shall be able to agree in finding some amendment to Clause 8 and to the Second Schedule. I suggest that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Captain Corfield), in Clause 7 of his Bill of last winter, took a juster approach to the problem than has my right hon. Friend in this Bill.
I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has gone, because I wanted to answer one or two of the general political points he made. He made great play with the inadequacies of the 1954 Act. Indeed, there were many inadequacies in it, but I would suggest that,


as my right hon. Friends had to cope with the jungle which was the 1947 Act, the fact that they did not put it all right in one go is not to their discredit, in that they made an effort—

Mr. E. G. Willis: Three goes.

Mr. Price: All right, three goes.
When we remember the original 1947 Act, which nationalised development values, the fact that they took a number of Acts to denationalise development values is hardly surprising. Then there was the absurd fund of £300 million which was in perpetuity to deal with all future development. If hon. Gentlemen opposite would think back to what would have been the state of affairs of the property market in this country if, at the time of Domesday Book, we had had a Socialist Government in power—

Mr. Willis: There would have been no problems at all.

Mr. Price: —who, taking the greater purchasing power of the then money, would probably have put £30 million, or whatever the currency at the time was, aside, they will see the absurdity of the whole basis upon which their system went.

Mr. G. Lindgren: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Price: No. I have not finished what I am saying.

Mr. Willis: Which is a lot of rubbish.

Mr. Price: I am talking of the Act of 1947. One must inevitably talk rubbish on so rubbishy a subject.
However, as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering is not here, I will not detain the House with commenting upon his dissertations.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I will take a note for my hon. and learned Friend of the hon. Gentleman's comments, if he likes.

Mr. Price: On 8th October I had the honour of introducing a resolution at my party's annual conference, at Blackpool, urging the Government to introduce, this Session, the fair market value for compensation upon compulsory purchase. I am happy to tell you, Mr. Deputy-

Speaker, that that resolution was carried unanimously. On that occasion I quoted Marcus Aurelius to my right hon. Friend. You will recall, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. that Marcus Aurelius observed:
Do not act as if thou wert going to live ten thousand years. Death hangs over thee. While thou livest, while it is in thy power, be good.
On that occasion I invited the Government to be good now, and I should like to thank the Government, on behalf of my party, for determining to be good very nearly now.
I should also like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on the vast amount of legislative work that they have had to carry out, and say that although, in our Parliamentary system, it is the Minister who takes responsibility, I hope it is not constitutionally improper for me to ask whether he will convey to his Department the thanks of the House for the great efforts which the civil servants must have made to carry out his instructions and to prepare a Bill so quickly after his supporters in the House made it clear that they would like a Measure of this nature.
This is, as has been pointed out already, a very technical Bill, and its details are understandable probably only to lawyers. I find that even some hon. and learned Members seem to be in some doubt about one or two of the Clauses. However, some of us ordinary mortals are rash enough to rush in where lawyers fear to plead. I feel, therefore, that today it would be appropriate not to discuss the details of the Bill, but to go in for a general discussion of the problems of compulsory purchase and of what is just compensation.
I start from the basis that the existence of private property is just. I know some hon. Members opposite start from the contrary position. If one does that it follows that one will come to a contrary conclusion. That is a fundamental difference. Secondly, I go on the basis —I have high ecclesiastical authority for what I am now going to observe—that because property is privately owned it can still serve the common good. If we go back to the classical defence of property by the medieval scholastics we shall find the arguments in favour of my contention admirably deployed. I think


that one must make the approach that of justice and equity according to the natural law.
We accept on both sides of the House the necessity for compulsory purchase, but there are two parties to the deal, the community and the individual. If compulsory purchase is to be just it must, in my opinion, fulfil three conditions. First, it must be shown that compulsory purchase is necessary in the particular case, and that, I suggest, is covered by public inquiry with an appeal to the Minister, and an appeal on points of law to the courts of law. Secondly, the procedure used must fulfil the three conditions so admirably outlined by the Franks Committee, namely, openness, fairness and impartiality. Thirdly, compensation must be paid and it must be just. It is, I think, mainly on that last point that we shall continue to argue in the House.
Let us consider, what do we compensate for? I suggest to the House that we compensate for three things. First, we compensate for the expropriation of the property; that is to say, for a capital loss. Secondly, we compensate for the loss of the use of the property; in other words, we compensate also for the use value, whether of a house to be removed for road widening, or of a farm which has to be split for the making of a motorway.

Mr. James McInnes: Why does the hon. Gentleman start with expropriation of existing owners? Owners, say, 500 years ago probably expropriated the land. There was no compensation then.

Mr. Price: The hon. Gentleman really does not want to get involved right back in history—

Hon. Members: Who started it?

Mr. Willis: The hon. Member, with the Domesday Book and Marcus Aurelius.

Mr. Price: —and the history of each bit of property. If the hon. Gentleman wants a lecture from me on the gradual development of property rights I should be. delighted to give it to him but that I should so sorely tempt your patience, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and that of the House.

Mr. Willis: What would the hon. Gentleman say, then, of a local authority

in Scotland purchasing land for a public park, when the owner can produce no title deeds relating to it at all?

Mr. Price: The hon. Gentleman will not tempt me into arguing the property law north of Hadrian's Wall, because I am not competent to do so. He is always pointing out to the House that Scottish law is different from the English, and the English law, heaven knows, is complicated enough. I do not propose to get involved in title deeds in Scotland. I could advise the hon. Member how to delve back into the English law of real property, on the rights of landowners, when title deeds cannot be proved on paper.

Mr. McInnes: Scottish law is real law.

Mr. Price: Thirdly, a man should be compensated for the disruption and interference involved in dispossession—the pain and suffering, as it might be called. In the Bill, we are going back to the 1919 rules modified by various provisions which arise from the establishment of planning. Hon. Members opposite by their interruptions have made it clear that they see no evidence, or very little evidence, that the present basis of compensation is just. I considered that the case had been made overwhelmingly in the debate last February and by the arguments then employed.
I have had experience, not only in my own constituency, but from a large number of letters which I received since I had a certain amount of publicity by virtue of moving a motion at my party conference. I sent on the letters to other hon. Members when I could identify the constituency to which the correspondent belonged, but I was rather shattered by the tragedy of many of the circumstances that were brought to my attention by these unfortunate people.
I suggest that the aim must be just compensation. Modern economists have little to offer on the conception of the just price. We have to go some time back in history, to the days when people were trying to relate economics to morals and to arrive at just conceptions of value. The modernity of those late medieval scholastic thinkers was brought out very clearly by Keynes, in a certain passage in his "General Theory". Therefore, I would like to trespass on the patience of the House for a few minutes to suggest


how those medieval schoolmen can help us in our present problem of trying to find, as, I am sure, everyone, on both sides of the House, wants to do, a method of compensation that is just to both the individual and the community.
In those days, justice when applied in the social field was defined in three forms. There was general justice—that is, justice covering the relation of the individual to the community. It is what hon. Members opposite refer to as social justice, but that was not the end of the story. Secondly, there was distributive justice, which governed the relation of the community to the individual. Thirdly, there was the commutative justice which governed the relationship of man to man.
I suggest that general justice is satisfied by the existing law in respect of compensation, provided that it is amended in the light of the Franks Report. Parts III and IV of the Bill attempt to do this.
Distributive justice does not permit the burden of assisting the common good to fall unevenly on particular persons. As Luis Molina, in his treatise "On Justice and Right", laid down:
To serve the common good it is not equitable that one element of the commonwealth be burdened more than others which can in their own degree and proportion contribute".
That is why most hon. Members would, I think, agree that the present system, whereby we have two sets of value for land, is contrary to distributive justice. It is, in effect, an arbitrary capital levy on those people who are subjected to compulsory purchase. If we are to have a capital levy, and I personally am against one, I am sure that all hon. Members, on both sides, would agree that it should be a levy upon everybody and not merely upon those who happen by the chance of planning to be subjected to compulsory purchase orders.
Distributive justice also demands that a man should not get a lower price for his land because the community acquires it than he would get if he had sold it to another man. In other words, he should get the just price.
Commutative justice demands that we should determine the just price for compensation as if the land were being sold by one man to another. As Molina stated:
Commutative justice consists in equality as to value between price and object.

Therefore, we get down to the conception of what is the just price. The basis in the first instance is utility. Again, to quote the words of Molina:
The just price of things is not judged from the nature of things in themselves … but inasmuch as they serve human use and are thereby valued by men…
That is not only current use value, but the anticiptaion of development and use in the future.
Secondly, the just price is only arrived at in the open market. John de Lugo, the seventeenth century moral theologian, said that
Value rises and falls not with the valuation of this one or that one, but with the common valuation.
That goes both ways, for the buyer and the seller.
The famous definition of Leonard Lessius was that the just price was the price at which goods
would be valued at a public valuation if they were openly displayed in the market place with the whole town coming together at the voice of the town crier.
It therefore follows that the open market is one from which monopoly is absent.
If we accept that principle, it takes care of the extreme cases of betterment, on the one hand, which are covered in Clause 7, in which for example, the community suffers because the seller is in a monopoly position, or the alternative situation, the other way round, that the buyer—namely, the acquiring authority—itself enjoys a monopoly position. What we must try to do, and I hope that we shall examine the Bill closely in Committee to achieve for this purpose—is to remove the excessive bargaining power on either side, either on the side of the community, namely, the acquiring authority, or, on the side of the private citizen holding out for an unreasonable price.
The question of holding out for an unreasonable price is the difference between the conception of the just price which I am trying to put across and the open market price as it might arise in practice where a seller could hold out for a monopoly price. In getting the fair and just conception of the market price, one tries to get equality of power between buyer and seller. This, I would have thought, was a conception that would appeal at least to some hon. Members opposite as being fair.
Finally, in arriving at the just price, the necessity of one party is no reason for raising the price. Molina said that
the necessity of the buyer confers no title on the seller to receive more than the common price".
I end by saying—and I am sure the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) will appreciate this—what St. Thomas Aquinas said in the Summa Theologica:
Purchase and sale are seen to have been introduced for the common utility of both parties, since one needs the goods of the other…But what was introduced for the common good ought not to be more of a burden on the one than on the other; and so the contract between them ought to be established according to an equality.
The Bill is a bold attempt to establish that equality and to relieve the private citizen who is the victim of a compulsory purchase order of carrying an excessive share of the burden of providing for the common good through compulsory purchase. In endeavouring to establish the just price, the margin of error should, in my opinion and in the opinion of hon. Members on this side, be in favour of the private citizen, for where the private citizen receives less than his due from the community, the reputation of the community as the custodian of justice is debased and. therefore, we all suffer.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. M. Philips Price: The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) has dealt with general questions of first principle and has not gone much into detail, which I do not criticise. He said, however, that he regarded the Bill as providing justice and fairness to owners, and he dealt with the whole question of compensation. He referred to the question of the unreasonable price which might be taken by owners under existing conditions, but I did not gather from him what were the methods by which he would deal with an owner who asked an unreasonable price.
We on this side of the House take the view that, although we do not oppose the Bill, because it rectifies certain injustices, it ignores one very vital aspect of the whole question—the question of betterment. The Parliamentary Secretary, when moving the Second Reading,

said that the Bill was "generally comprehensive", but that is just what we do not think it is. It deals with a part of this question, but it does not deal with something which we think is vital, and in the course of my remarks I hope to explain what I mean by this.
This Bill has been introduced in order to clear up the muddles and anomalies that arose out of the scrapping of the Silkin Act of 1947. Of course, we all know of cases—I have had some in my own constituency—of local authorities acquiring land for development and not being able to pay, even if they might have wanted to do so, a fair price to the owners for development, and, consequently, in some cases those owners have lost the value of the land which they had paid for. The hon. and gallant Member for Gloucestershire, South (Captain Corfield), in his Private Bill—in the debate on which I spoke and went so far as to say that the Bill should receive a Second Reading—tried to deal with this matter, but again dealt with only one aspect of the question, and left out the others.
Obviously, the present situation cannot be allowed to continue, because, in some cases, it hampers development. Local authorities, having acquired land which they need under the powers which they possess and knowing that they cannot pay more for it than the 1947 value, although it is worth more today, may hold up future development, waiting for some decision to be taken or some Bill to be introduced in the House, as this Bill has been. Therefore, it was necessary to go back to some other method, and this Bill goes back to the system of compensation, with variations from it and with its provisions brought up to date, of the 1919 Act which dealt with compensation for acquisition of land.
There is another good feature of the Bill for which one must give credit which is that it retains the system of planning, which I think we all here, and public opinion outside, now generally appreciate. We must ensure that no private owner shall exploit land in his own interests without consideration of a general scheme for the development of an area. Having said that, I must point out that the Bill will still permit an owner to get away with land values created by the community, without any contribution


either to the local authority or to the State. Moreover, I feel that the Bill may force up the value of land adjacent to land to be developed and thereby cause local authorities to put excessive valuations on land adjacent to that which they are to develop in future years. This, again, may hold up development.
The Bill may provide fairness and justice to owners, but in some cases it will certainly be unfair to local authorities. I have been reading the Bill carefully and trying to understand it, as well as the White Paper. The third paragraph of the Third Schedule seems to contain some complicated provision against increased values of adjacent land. I do not know whether these provisions are designed to meet the criticism I have just been making, but I am afraid that, to a layman like myself, they are so incomprehensible that I cannot say if they really will have that effect. I strongly suspect that if there are any guarantees or provisions against increasing the value of adjacent land, these provisions are inadequate.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), in moving the rejection of the Town and Country Planning Bill, 1952, which did away with the Silkin Act of 1937. said:
This Bill, I submit, abandons what has come to be regarded by many people as an essential principle in the planning legislation of these times—the link between betterment and compensation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1952; Vol. 508, c. 1128.]
Just as the Act of 1952 failed in that respect, so this Bill fails in the same respect. What is true of that Act is also true of this Bill. The Government may say that they cannot reopen this question of betterment here, that it is too big and would require another Bill. It may be that it could not be included in a Bill of this kind, but I think that at least the spokesman on behalf of the Government might have given an indication that they are aware of this problem and will deal with it later.
It might, of course, be dealt with in a Budget, which, I agree, could not even be hinted at from the Treasury Bench today, even if that were the case. The question of betterment and unearned increment was dealt with in the Budgets of Mr. Lloyd George in 1909 and of Mr. Philip Snowden in 1930 or 1931. I

strongly suspect that the Government have no such intention at all. They have said nothing about it, and have not included it in the Bill. The Conservative Party has always disliked dealing systematically with betterment.
We have heard from the speeches of two hon. Members opposite who spoke from the back benches in this debate that attempts to deal with betterment in the past have failed. I agree that they have not been very successful, very largely, in the case of the Lloyd George Budget proposal of 1909 and the Snowden Budget of 1930, because of the very complicated valuations which this question of betterment may entail and which would have taken years to complete. The Silkin Act of 1937 certainly tackled betterment with a vengeance, by the simple process of annexing it to the State, but I feel that if went a little too far, because it deprived an owner of all interest in the improvement of his property.
Unless we are to have full-scale land nationalisation we must leave the owner with some interest in developing his land. To my mind, however, if there is a case for leaving some part of the increased public value of land to the owner there is an equal case for another part of the betterment value going to the State or the local authority. That has been the view of many experts in the past who have dealt with this question. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) referred to the Uthwatt Report of 1944. He quoted parts of it, and I should like to quote some others.
Paragraph 397 states:
We recommend a scheme for a periodic levy on a proportion of increases in annual site values as revealed by quinquennial assessment made through the ordinary rating machinery…
In paragraph 308 the Report recommends the taking of a fixed proportion of the increase of the site value, and in paragraph 311 recommends that that proportion should be 75 per cent.
The Times, in an article on this question on 8th August this year, said:
A capital gains tax (on land) would certainly have to take less than 100 per cent. and might work on a sliding scale. It seems improbable that it will ever be feasible to secure all betterment of land to the State.
These are the views of an important organ of public opinion which admits the


principle of betterment but says that the 1947 Act went too far in annexing the whole of the public value to the State, which I think is a correct criticism to make.
There are various ways in which this could be done. Periodical valuations of land for rating and taxation purposes are already made, I think every five years. It should not be impossible to levy a charge on an increased site value resulting from planning by the local authority and agreed to by the planning authority. That levy on the increased value should either be paid in a lump sum or be paid out over a term of years as an addition to Schedule A of the Income Tax. Or it might he in the form of a levy when the property is sold, or it might be both.
The Parliamentary Secretary suggested that we on this side of the House should go into details on what we propose. It is not the business of the Opposition to go into details at all but, when it criticises a Measure, to give an indication or outline of the kind of thing it would propose. Perhaps I have gone too far, but then I am not responsible except to myself and my constituents. Therefore, I think that I can go a little far in this respect and say that to my mind at least that is the kind of way in which betterment could be dealt with.
I am sure that it will go some way towards recouping either the Exchequer, who may be involved in grants, or the local authorities who under this Measure will have to meet increased charges as a result of the provisions in the Bill The Bill has some quite important provisions which we cannot oppose. It does away with certain injustices and anomalies, but it leaves out a very important aspect of this whole question of land values and betterment. As I see it, the task is to try to reconcile a territorial planning system with fair compensation to owners, and at the same time to acquire for the State or the local authority a part of the land values created by the community.

6.25 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): It is a rather interesting coincidence that the last two hon. Members to speak, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) and the hon. Member for Gloucestershire. West (Mr. Philips Price) should have used quite frequently the expressions "just

price," "reasonable price" and "unreasonable price". Far be it from me to get into a discussion on whether personalities were involved in these allusions, but we had an interesting example of the two-price argument in the last few minutes. I do not think that the House will expect me to follow in detail what the two hon. Members were saying and I propose to concentrate largely on the Scottish questions raised by the Bill.
First, I should like to say a few words about the general purpose of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has explained how it remedies the injustice suffered in recent years by many people whose land has been taken by public authorities, an injustice which, there is some reason to believe, has sometimes resulted in a reluctance on the part of the authorities themselves to acquire the land best suited for their purposes. Although the difficulties have been less acute in Scotland, because in general the market value of land has diverged less from the 1954 Act value, all that my hon. Friend said applies, in principle, equally in Scotland as in England and Wales.

Mr. Willis: This is important in relation to what the right hon. Gentleman may say later. What is the evidence about this in Scotland? We have not had impressive speeches on the subject from Tory Members and quite a number of us on this side of the House do not know where the evidence exists.

Mr. Maclay: It is quite correct to say precisely what I have been saying—that the position has not been so acute in Scotland as in England, but it has been there all the same. It is difficult to show how precisely one gets evidence of this but when I say that there is reason to believe it I must tell the House that I have had remarks made to me about this problem—that it is in the minds of local authorities. They are worried about the difficulties that arise from the two-price system. All hon. Members who are in close touch with local authorities know that this has been an element in their thinking. I assure the hon. Member that I have had quite a lot of personal representations on this, not from local authorities but from others. I repeat that in the minds of some local authorities, at any rate, this is a matter of concern.
I do not propose to pursue these general issues. They will probably be discussed further in the course of debate and my right hon. Friend no doubt will have more to say on general issues which were also fully covered by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in his opening speech. Therefore, I turn at once to the points in the Bill which are most relevant to Scotland.
These fall under two heads. The first is the effect of the Bill on Scottish administration, especially on land transactions undertaken by local and other public authorities in Scotland. The second relates to the form of legislation which the Government have chosen to adopt, by introducing a Great Britain Bill containing the necessary provisions for its Scottish application, rather than two separate Bills. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) referred to this in his opening remarks.
It is not possible to make a firm estimate of cost to public authorities of returning to market value as the price basis for land acquisiton. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill do, however, give some rough figures, although the average increase of 25 per cent. which they forecast would certainly not apply to every transaction. It is an average.
Indeed, I would expect the average to be lower in Scotland than in England for, whatever the reasons may be, the private market in land appears to be rather less active north of the Border. In the country districts, where there is, in any case, little demand for land for development, the present price level is not likely to undergo much change. Nor is developed land in urban areas acquired for residential redevelopment, for example, in the course of slum clearance, likely to cost much more.
The main difference is likely to be on the fringes of towns where the market in land for development is most active. That was the point at which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) rose earlier in the debate, and as I go on with my remarks he will find that I have tried to cover the effects as well as I can.

Mr. Ross: There was one important omission from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. He referred us to the

Financial Memorandum, but he will appreciate that we have been given no guidance as to whether they are purely English figures. We would welcome an estimate of what is likely to be the cost in Scotland.

Mr. Maclay: I am coming to that. I would remind the House that while the Bill, in terms, deals only with compulsory acquisition, market value ascertained under the Bill will, as a matter of administrative practice, become the permissible basis for land purchase by agreement also.
Coming to figures, the present position is that Government Departments are spending about £250,000 a year in buying land in Scotland for a variety of purposes. The additional cost, we estimate, is not likely to exceed a quarter of this amount, say, £60,000 a year. Local authorities are spending about £1¼ million, and on the same basis of a 25 per cent. average increase the extra cost may be around £300,000.
The biggest single item in local authority land purchase is land for housing, and perhaps I should mention that purchases of virgin sites cost about £500,000 last year. An increase approaching a quarter of this sum, say £100,000, may seem a sizeable amount, but it represents on the average only about £3 or £4 on the capital cost of each house built, or certainly less than 5s. per annum over the 60-year loan repayment period. Even in exceptional cases, which could arise where the cost of land is doubled by the Bill, the resulting additional annual charge is under £1 a year per house.
The second biggest item in local authority land purchases is land for roads, much of which, where classified roads are concerned, attracts a percentage grant from the Exchequer. The cost of land is relatively a very small part of the cost of most services, and, while an allowance for the new price basis will certainly be made in calculating "relevant expenditure" for the purpose of general grant, it seems that an addition of about £20,000 to this expenditure will be an ample allowance.
In these circumstances, there is no reason to fear that the development of housing or other important services is likely to be hampered by the Bill, or that


local authorities will find themselves faced with big increases in expenditure. Where major operations are in prospect as part of the programme for resettling Glasgow overspill, there are further safeguards at both ends.
The cost of land in central redevelopment areas is not likely to be much higher, and, in any event, deficits arising on redevelopment in Glasgow itself will continue to rank for 50 per cent. Exchequer grant under the Planning Acts, this having been especially preserved for major redevelopment in last year's Local Government Act. In town development schemes outside Glasgow, land transactions are one of the items admitted in the calculation of the deficit, to be expected in the early years of such schemes, which ranks for 75 per cent. Exchequer grant under the Housing and Town Development Act.
I turn now to the form of the proposed legislation, having tried to give its effects as briefly and clearly as I can. I am well aware that in addition to the opening remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering there has been some comment on the decision of the Government to proceed by way of a Great Britain Bill. I believe, however, that the course we have adopted is, all things considered, the most advantageous for Scotland and Scottish affairs as a whole, as I will try to explain.
I do not wish to make too much play with predecents, for these can be quoted on both sides of almost any argument. However, we are certainly not without good precedents for the amendment in a Great Britain Bill of codes of law the main provisions of which are contained in separate legislation. I am thinking here particularly of the National Health Service (Amendment) Acts of 1949, 1951 and 1952, which amended both the original English National Health Service Act of 1946 and the Scottish National Health Service Act of 1947. These amending Acts, like the present Bill, dealt largely with matters of principle, where uniformity between Scotland and England was essential, and matters of structure were secondary or relatively unimportant. I do not think that there has been any serious criticism of these Acts.
The main concern of the present legislation is with rules of compensation which

must, in fairness to all concerned, be in essence the same in Scotland as in England. Indeed, the basic rules are contained in a Great Britain Act, the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act. 1919, although they have since been amended in separate Scottish Planning Acts of 1945—not now operative in this field—1947 and 1954. The compensation provisions, however, were a very minor part of the 1945 Act, the main purpose of which was to confer new planning powers on local authorities; while the 1947 Act also dealt extensively with the functions of local planning authorities, local authorities having, of course, a completely different structure in Scotland from England and Wales.
I concede that the 1954 Planning Act dealt principally with questions of compensation, and other matters relating to land values, which had necessarily to be uniform throughout Great Britain. However, the parliamentary proceedings on that Bill showed clearly the problems which arise in attempting to legislate separately for Scotland and England on matters which, in fairness, must he dealt with uniformly. The Scottish Bill had very often, given the need for uniformity, to be kept in line with what was happening in the English Bill, in the interests of fairness to all concerned in both countries, although Scottish Members had, by the nature of these Bills, taken relatively little part in the proceedings on the English Bill. This time, the Great Britain character of the Bill is intended to secure that Scottish Members will play their part from the outset, and at all stages, in considering the common questions involved.
Under present arrangements it will be possible for Scottish Members especially interested in the present Bill to take an effective part in its Committee stage, although another Bill may be under consideration by the Scottish Standing Committee at the same time. Indeed, as far as I can see, the Scottish Standing Committee is likely to be fairly fully occupied with important legislation and business of a distinctively Scottish character. There is, for example, an important Bill for agricultural interests, as well as many others.
I would emphasise that the Bill we are discussing today, in practically all its provisions, is of common application to


Scotland and to England. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering said in his opening remarks that it would be a nuisance for Scottish Members to listen to English Members on their own subjects, and vice versa, but if hon. Members have studied this Bill they will have found that there are practically no parts of it which are not of common interest to both. The exceptional provisions applying to England only are Clauses 27 and 39, which do not need a Scottish equivalent; Clause 33, the Scottish equivalent of which appears as Clause 34; a very few subsections in other Clauses; and parts of Schedules where, for convenience, Scottish and English provisions are set out separately in full. I would emphasise that the principles are common throughout, and I am convinced that united discussion is the best way of getting the most satisfactory debating for everybody concerned in both countries.
At the same time, the Bill does not fail to deal with the very few special problems that arise in a special form in Scotland. As regards compensation, there is, for example, a special point about the Scottish superior, who in certain circumstances has a financial interest in the compensation payable to his feuar by an acquiring authority; while Scottish town development schemes have no exact equivalent in English statutes. If the hon. Member wanted them, I could give precise references, but I shall not unless he asks me to do so. I repeat that the number of cases in which there is any difference whatsoever is very small indeed.
So far, I have been dealing with this question from the standpoint of Parliament itself. There is, of course, another important standpoint. It is that of local authorities and others, not least the lawyers, who will have to operate the provisions of the Bill in Scotland when it becomes law. The main trouble, of course, as I recognise, is that many of the provisions of this Bill take effect by way of amendments to earlier Acts, some of which themselves have already been subjected to extensive amendment. This, I would ask the House to note, would have applied even with a separate Scottish Bill, and the real remedy is, of course, consolidation of all the relevant statutes. That is certainly a task to which

early attention should be directed, but I should be less than candid if I were to give the impression that the task could be overtaken sufficiently quickly to help those who will have to operate under the new Bill in the months following its passage into law.
Short of full consolidation, however, there is another possible means of helping Scottish authorities and lawyers which I have been looking at, and which could be invoked much more speedily. This would be to carry the present Bill through all its stages on to the Statute Book and then re-enact it in purely Scottish terms, as an Act applying to Scotland only. This was done in 1947, when the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act of 1946, passed as a Great Britain Act, was re-enacted in Scottish terms as the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act, 1947. If a repetition of this procedure seems desirable, the Government will certainly be willing to consider taking this course of action at the appropriate time.
I assure the House that it is the firm resolve of Her Majesty's Government to give Scottish Members every opportunity of playing their part in dealing with all legislation, particularly that legislation affecting Scotland. We have introduced this Bill as a Great Britain Bill because we are convinced, for the reasons which I have tried to set out as clearly as I can, that it is the best way of giving them that opportunity in the present context, having regard, I repeat, to the manifest unfairness —I think everyone will agree with this —that would be involved in the adoption of different principles for Scottish legislation and compensation in a matter of this kind.
I hope that I have covered the essential parts of what will be the effect of the Bill on land acquisition in Scotland and demonstrated what is so dear to all Scottish Members' hearts, getting on with slum clearance and overspill. Such operations will not be seriously affected. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. James McInnes: I endeavoured to follow the right hon. Gentleman very carefully and I must confess that I thought he began


his speech by indicating that he had received representations largely from local authorities with regard to the dual price system. When my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) showed some indication that it was not the local authorities, the right hon. Gentleman then indicated that these were personal representations. Do I take it that by "personal" he means that the Scottish landowners have come to meet him, or is it merely a question of some friends who have desired to discuss the matter with him?

Mr. Maclay: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants me to say again precisely what I said earlier, but he will be able to read in HANSARD what I did say. I do not want to overemphasise this point, but I did say that there is some evidence to show that there has been a reluctance on the part of local authorities to acquire land. I did not say that I had had representations from them. I said that in the normal course of my duties as a local Member of Parliament on the back bench as well as the Front Bench, and in moving about Scotland, as I have done a great deal, I have heard a number of comments that this is one of the difficulties in the back of people's minds when considering this very awkward question of the acquisition of land. I have had no formal representations from landowners or anyone else on it. I merely reported what the ordinary person would find if he went about discussing these problems.

Mr. McInnes: The position is just as I thought, that the Secretary of State has had no formal representations from local authorities in Scotland or from anyone else. That is the situation and I accept it. I would have thought that since local authorities would be involved in a sum of probably £300,000 or £400,000 in connection with the acquisition of land, the Secretary of State would have given us some indication that in those circumstances he was prepared to increase the extent of the contribution to local authorities under the block grant arrangements, but no such indication has been given by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Maclay: I made a very careful study of what would happen under "relevant expenditure." The hon. Gentleman may remember what I said about that in

the course of my speech, and also on the other point.

Mr. McInnes: Certainly under "relevant expenditure," and the right hon. Gentleman also indicated that local authorities get a 75 per cent. grant in respect of comprehensive redevelopment and things like that, but that is what they are getting now. It is not something extra to meet the situation that is arising out of the Bill.
I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman might have made some reference in a Bill of this kind to the very important question of betterment. Obviously, he elected to ignore all that was involved in a matter of that kind and he concentrated a good deal of his speech on the question why there was not a separate Scottish Bill. I hope that I may be allowed to deal with that aspect as I proceed with my own contribution to this debate.
The Secretary of State confesses, of course, that the main purpose of the Bill is to establish fair market value compensation for land which is being compulsorily acquired. As I understand it from listening to the debate so far as it has gone, the reason for this fundamental change is that the two-price system for the acquisition of land has created untold hardship and injustice throughout the country. It is the dual price system, introduced in 1954 by the present Government—by the present Prime Minister—that has led to all the anomalies which evidently are taking place south of the Border, but I confess that there is very little evidence of that in Scotland.
Are we really satisfied that the fair market value which the Bill now provides is the real solution to the problem? I wish that the Conservative Party would make up its mind on this very vexed and thorny problem of town and country planning. We have had the 1952 Act to amend the 1947 Act, we have had the 1954 Act and we now have the present Bill, each attempting to improve on its predecessor, as it were.
I want to take the position as it stands today in respect of the 1952 and 1954 Acts and deal with the Scottish aspects of the Bill against that background. Candidly, having regard to the situation that exists in Scotland, I cannot understand why the Secretary of State for


Scotland agreed to the Clauses on fair market value being incorporated in the Bill and applied to Scotland. Is the Secretary of State in possession of some concrete evidence that there is widespread hardship and injustice in Scotland? He has not told us so. In fact, he indicated that he had had no formal representations at all. Yet here we have an English Measure, with Scotland tagged on, introduced on the basis—

Mr. Maclay: On the question of formal evidence, if a Government always wait for people to bring deputations, it is a poor form of Government. One has to do what one believes to be right on the basis of the knowledge that one has of the situation as it exists.

Mr. Ross: Give us one piece of evidence.

Mr. McInnes: When there are deputations to meet him, the Secretary of State never tells us about them, but when there are no deputations he says that he has had no formal representations. That is his technique.
I say categorically that there is absolutely no evidence of widespread injustice or hardship in Scotland under the existing town and country planning provisions, and there is no justification of any kind for introducing Scotland into the Bill in respect of the fair market value Clauses.
Ever since 1947 Scottish local authorities have acquired a considerable volume of land for housing, industrial and commercial purposes, and almost all that land—not entirely all—was acquired by agreement. In the City of Glasgow, which has built more than 52,000 houses since 1946, practically all the land was purchased by agreement, as was the land for the twenty-five industrial estates that we have in Scotland. When agreement is reached between a willing seller and a willing buyer, there is no question of hardship or injustice. I am not even conscious that private developers have ever experienced any difficulty in acquiring land. In fact, more private development in housing is going on in Scotland at present than there has been since the end of the war, and that does not indicate hardship or injustice to the landowner.
I concede that we have been able to reach these agreements because we possessed the instrument of compulsory purchase, and I hope that we shall always maintain that instrument when it comes to negotiating for land. Having said that, I would also say that in isolated cases—I emphasise "isolated cases" —where land has been compulsorily acquired there is no evidence that hardship or injustice has been created.
On reading the debate on the Private Member's Bill on 21st February I was a little surprised to find that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley), whom we all regard as being an authority on town and country planning questions, took the opportunity to quote from four letters which he had received from county planning officers, one of whom had said that ever since the Tory Act of 1954 it had become extremely difficult for local authorities to acquire land by agreement. I believe that the hon. Gentleman, who represents a Scottish constituency, will agree that the four letters were from planning officers located in England.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Of course. We were dealing with an English Bill.

Mr. McInnes: It was a Private Member's Bill which sought to alter the situation. Even if it were an English Bill, the hon. Gentleman could have indicated, if he had the information, that the situation existed not merely in England and Wales but also in Scotland. I think he will agree with me that he found himself in precisely the position in which I find myself tonight, that there is no evidence of hardship and injustice in Scotland.
In the light of these circumstances, I cannot understand why the Secretary of State agreed to the fair market value provision being applied to Scotland. There is no case for it and no demand for it. I can only conclude that it is a concession to selected interests, to landowners, specially designed and dressed up to make it appear that the Conservative Party was not giving a concession to landowners but was actually dealing with an overdue social reform. The reform will cast local authorities in Britain an additional £8 to £10 million, and I regard that as money which is simply an unearned gift to landowners.
I hold the view that compensation at fair market value could be justified only if it were part of a system in which there was some balance resulting from the extraction of betterment from owners whose land had benefited as a result of the efforts and enterprise of the community. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), in his excellent speech, made considerable reference to betterment and indicated that its collection could be achieved through the system of a capital gains tax.
Two matters disturb me. One is that of Glasgow's overspill problem and its relationship to town development legislation, the other is that of the abandoned properties in the City of Glasgow. Glasgow's overspill problem involves the transfer of about 300,000 people into the areas of seventy or eighty Scottish local authorities. The planning authorities in Scotland are the county councils and the large burghs. They had no knowledge of this problem when they submitted their development plans six or seven years ago. Is there not a danger that those seventy or eighty authorities, faced as they will inevitably be faced with increases in the cost of land acquisition, will be discouraged from making overspill agreements with the City of Glasgow?
Will not those authorities which have already entered overspill agreements, and which may be discouraged by the Bill from fulfilling their obligations under those agreements, be in some difficulty? Section 16 of the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act, 1957, gives the Secretary of State powers to deal with local authorities who default in their overspill agreements by taking action against them at the Court of Session. Does he intend to apply that procedure in the knowledge that the Government themselves will be responsible for local authorities defaulting in that way?

Mr. Maclay: If the hon. Member will carefully study what I have said, he will see that the effect of the Bill is very small indeed. I cannot believe that it will have any of the effects of which he is frightened.

Mr. McInnes: Surely the situation is as I have described it, since the right hon. Gentleman has taken those powers. However, would it not be grossly unfair if a local authority defaulted and suffered

legal action because of the action of the Government?
I do not understand the situation which will arise in connection with the abandoned properties in Glasgow. Glasgow has the unique problem of having hundreds of privately rented houses which have been abandoned by their owners—perhaps 1,500 to 2,000 properties. Despite all their efforts, local authorities have been unable to trace the owners, the ground superiors, or the bond holders. In those circumstances, how could a local authority serve the prescribed notice required in Part II of the Second Schedule? The right hon. Gentleman should consider giving Glasgow Corporation power to enable it to take over such houses, indemnifying it against any subsequent claims which may be lodged in a year or two by the ground superiors, the bond holders or the owners.
As everyone will agree, this is a very complicated Measure. It is complicated not only in its essential subject matter, but in its adaptation of an English Measure to Scottish conditions. It becomes almost impossible to comprehend its implications. The Bill consists of forty-five Clauses and eight Schedules, of which no fewer than thirty Clauses and live Schedules contain separate subsections or paragraphs dealing with the application to Scotland, many of those references extending to more than a full page of print.
This way of legislating is fantastic and displays a complete contempt and disregard for the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs, which was appointed by the present Government and which reported in 1954. That Commission recommended that whenever a Statute might lead to difficulties of interpretation if applied to the whole of the United Kingdom, separate Measures should be enacted for Scotland and for England and Wales. The inclusion of Scotland in the Bill has aroused a good deal of hostility in the Scottish Press and has provoked letters from the legal profession, even to the Lord Advocate, which is unusual.
I commend to the Secretary of State and to the Law Officers an excellent article by Professor Smith, who holds the Chair of Civil Law at Edinburgh University. This article appeared in today's


issue of the Scotsman. Professor Smith clearly demonstrates the confusion and inconvenience caused by the habit which has recently grown up in Parliament of spatchcocking Scottish application in English Bills. How right Professor Smith is! We have had mining subsidence legislation, legislation on agriculture and we have had the Rent Act and now we have a Town and Country Planning Bill, all appearing during the tenure of the present Secretary of State. How different it was with former Secretaries of State, who at least had the courage to stand up for the principle that there should be separate bills for Scotland.
All of those Bills had a relationship to land. Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows that the law of land tenure in Scotland is radically different from that in England and Wales, and that in the past that difference has been used as one of the main justifications for having separate Scottish legislation. There is another and very important reason why we object to being tied to English Bills. Since this is a United Kingdom Bill it will go to a United Kingdom Committee, with the result that nine out of every ten Scottish Members will be denied the right and opportunity of participating in what is a very controversial Bill. Surely that is the very negation of democratic government. Indeed, in a United Kingdom Committee our Amendments are decided not upon their merits but by the swashbuckling votes of the Englishmen who are present. Had this been a Scottish Bill all seventy-one Scottish Members could have participated in it in the Scottish Standing Committee. That is what the Scottish Standing Committee is for.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the Secretary of State has already denied us that right. All the Scottish Members are not allowed in that Committee when it is discussing legislation. He has already cut down the number.

Mr. McInnes: I am conscious of the changes that have taken place, as my hon. Friend said.
Why does the Secretary of State persist in spatchcocking Scottish legislation into English Bills? Is it because he is conscious of his own deficiencies?

Is it because he lacks the courage to face the criticisms of Scottish Members? He has never yet attended a United Kingdom Committee that was dealing with the Scottish aspects of a Bill. Unlike the English Ministers, who not only attend themselves but are fortified by the presence of their Under-Secretaries, the Scottish Secretary of State absents himself and sends along one of his underlings.
As it stands the Bill will be a nightmare to local government officials and others who are trying to interpret its full implications. In his speech this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman suggested that after all the proceedings are over arrangements can be made to print a separate Scottish Bill and make it available to local authorities, town clerks and others. We are not concerned with the way in which the Bill is printed; what concerns us is the fact that we have been denied an opportunity to discuss it. What does it mean to the people as it stands at present? Before anyone can ascertain its effects upon existing Scottish legislation he has to ascertain the effect of the Scottish application Clauses to English Amendments. It has taken me all my time to explain what it means.
That is the situation, and my hon. Friends and I feel very strongly about it. I make a last-minute appeal to the Secretary of State. If he cannot give us a separate Scottish Bill, will he say that the Committee stage will be taken on the Floor of the House? If he cannot do that, all I can say is may Parliament, in its wisdom, save Scotland from this spineless, speechless Secretary of State.

7.15 p.m.

Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley (North Angus and Mearns): The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), in the course of a long speech, has made two main charges—[HON. MEMERS: "It was not long."] It is a speech that I hope I shall not emulate for its length.

Dr. J. Dickson Mahon: Hear, hear.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central made two main points. His first was that a case has not been made out for applying fair market value—he used that phrase two or three times—when land in Scotland is compulsorily acquired. Will he consider


the logic of his suggestion? He is suggesting that south of the Border there should be a Measure allowing fair market value to owners of property, but that north of the Border we should go on with the present system of market values tied to a price applicable to a rapidly receding past—to values applying in 1947.

Mr. McInnes: What I was trying to say was that the bulk of the acquisitions had been carried out by agreement. I should also have indicated that those agreements almost provided for fair market value. but they did not quite. The situation in England is entirely different.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: The situation may he entirely different, but the code of compensation is exactly the same. Where land is acquired in the exercise of compulsory powers, or by agreement with the threat of compulsory acquisition behind it, it is at existing use value plus the unexpended balance of the claims for loss of development value under the 1947 Acts, assessed at 1947 prices. The year 1947 is receding further and further into the past, and the hon. Member is quite content to see a code based on fair market value operating south of the Border, where land is acquired compulsorily, and a code operating north of the Border which is already outmoded, and which bases its compensation in part by reference to 1947 values.
Yet the hon. Member is one of those who constantly ask industrialists to come to Scotland. How can we expect them to do so when we would be asking them to come to a country where the system of compensation is unfair as compared with that operating in England, where people will, in future, receive compensation based upon fair market values?
We have suffered in Scotland in the past from the fact that, unlike the situation in England, the big corporations—the colleges, and so on—have not invested money in agricultural estates. That has been done in England, to the great benefit of the rural economy. The Oxford and Cambridge colleges and other big corporations are very good landlords. That situation does not exist in Scotland because, in the past, its system has been bedevilled by the incidence of owners' rates.
We have now got rid of owners' rates. Are we to place another impediment in

the way of people whom we seek to attract to Scotland to help our Scottish economy? Are we to allow a fair compensation system to operate in England while an unfair system operates in Scotland?
The other point made by the hon. Member relates to the question of a separate Bill for Scotland. On the surface, this is an attractive idea. In the past, many of us, including myself, have paid lip-service to the need for Scotsmen to have their own separate legislation and, wherever possible, to have Bills dealing specifically with Scottish subjects. But I am convinced that the machinery of the House of Commons and our Committee system is not adapted to having two separate Bills, containing exactly similar Clauses, running in parallel, because one Measure would get out of step with the other. I am convinced that the solution lies in an alteration of our Committee system, if we are to have an arrangement where any legislation dealing with Scotland invariably goes to the Scottish Standing Committee.
I was glad to hear the two possible solutions suggested by my right hon. Friend. I do not pretend to understand the full implications of the first he mentioned. But I gather that it might be possible, after the passing of this legislation, to extract the purely Scottish provisions and present them, presumably to the House, in the form of a purely Scottish Bill which might be speedily enacted. The second matter by which I set great store is the hope that we shall be able, within a reasonable time, to consolidate all our town and country planning legislation relating to Scotland. We now have the 1947 Act and the 1954 Act, and when this Bill becomes law we shall have the 1959 Act. It will then be desirable that we should have a consolidation Measure applying only to Scotland.
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central, with his attention to detail, failed to refer to one purely Scottish point. It is that, with the exception of Clause 1, the rest of the Scottish provisions do not come into operation until 16th May next year, whereas the provisions relating to England and Wales come into operation one month after the Royal Assent, which is likely to be given some time next summer. This


means that Scotland may well be behind England and Wales in this respect.
I understand the reason is that many of the relaxations of central control upon local authorities imposed by the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1958, operate from the beginning of the financial year, which is 16th May, 1959, and, therefore, it is convenient to have the further relaxations of control brought about by this Bill operating in Scotland at the same time.
I warmly welcome the Bill from a United Kingdom point of view and for a number of reasons. I consider it wise that market values should be in accordance with the limitations imposed by the development plans. It may be argued that the development plans so alter the incidence of values in different places, by allowing development here and denying it there, that they should be ignored if we are to arrive at the true value of any parcel of land. It is also said that the development plans are liable to be changed within five years, and, therefore, there is nothing immutable about them, nothing sacrosanct, and it would be unwise to pay too much attention to them as a basis of values.
But the development plans have been with us for some five years. Sales of land and property have taken place at values which have had regard to the limitations imposed by those plans, and I think that the Government are right to accept those limitations as a basis for market value under this legislation.
Another thing which pleases me is that in Clause 14, which states that where land is acquired for one purpose, and within five years is alienated by the acquiring authority for some other purpose which has a higher market value, the former owner, from whom it was acquired compulsorily, can be recouped to the extent of the increase in value. I consider that a good thing. But I suggest—perhaps this is a Committee point, but it is a good thing to give advance notice of some important Committee points—that five years is not a sufficiently long period.
Both the Scottish and the English legislation in 1947 contained provisions that where land is designated for compulsory acquisition, and the designating authority

has not acquired it within a term of twelve years, or eight years in the case of agricultural land, it can be called on to withdraw the designation or to purchase the land. I suggest that for this purpose those periods are more realistic than the period of five years mentioned in Clause 14 of this Bill.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central referred to a speech I made in connection with what is known as the "Captain Corfield Bill"—the Measure introduced by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gloucestershire. South (Captain Corfield) and which had its Second Reading on 21st February of this year. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central mentioned that I gave some evidence during the debate on that Bill—which I had acquired as a member of the Executive Committee of the Town and Country Planning Association—of the hampering effect on planning and the right use of the land of Britain because local authorities knew that in many cases real hardship would be caused to individuals were land compulsorily acquired on the present basis; and, for that reason, in many cases second-best and even third-best or fourth-best land was taken.
I give the point to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central. My evidence comes from England, I have no evidence from Scotland, but in England there is a great deal of evidence that the present unfair code of compensation is militating against the proper and right value of the land of Britain—[HON. MEMBERS: "England."]—all right, England and Wales, and I welcome the Bill for that reason, among others.
Another point is the question of the date of the coming into operation of the new market value provisions. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South has drawn the attention of the House to this matter. He said that there is a good deal of evidence that ever since the introduction of his Bill there has been a greater number than usual of notices to treat. That has not happened uniformly over the country. I do not think that it has happened in Scotland at all, but evidence shows that in certain places in England local authorities have been getting in quickly, because they thought that there would be some legislation on these lines.
Even if that were not so it seems desirable that the new and, ex hypothesi, more favourable provisions should apply in all cases where purchase has not been completed by the legal vesting of the land in the acquiring authority. I want that point to be urged when we come to Committee.
The last point on which I would trouble the House is Clause 31, which provides that resident owner-occupiers whose land has been blighted by planning and over whose land there hangs the threat of compulsory acquisition because it has been allocated for a public purpose, may, in certain circumstances, serve a purchase notice upon the authorities. Why do the Government stop at the resident owner-occupier? It is made clear in the White Paper that the purchase notice procedure is not proposed on grounds of hardship. The White Paper goes out of its way to make that clear. The owner-occupier has power, in certain circumstances, to compel the local authority to buy his house because he will lose on the price, now that his land is designated for compulsory purchase.
Surely the same conditions apply in the case of a man who owns a shop or of an industrialist who owns a factory; or, for that matter, an investor in house property. He may want to realise his investment because he has an urgent need for money. The blight that has settled on his property makes him unable to do so. In an otherwise admirable speech, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, talking about this Clause, said that he had been advised that 95 per cent. of the cases of hardship would be covered by the provisions for the resident owner-occupier, and that in the remaining 5 per cent. of cases the local authorities would be urged to buy in advance.
If that is the case, if the measure of the thing is only 5 per cent., why should we not apply the provisions of Clause 31 to other people who are just as likely to suffer hardship as is the owner-occupier? They will have been unable to sell except at a substantially lower price than if there had been no planning blight—there are also the hoops through which a claimant has to go under this Clause. The other people ought, in fairness, to be able to require the acquiring authority to proceed at once with purchase.
Having said that, I must add that this is a very good Bill. I am sorry that we cannot have a different Bill for Scotland, but I hope that we shall join in Committee in doing all we can to put these Committee points right. I welcome the introduction of the Bill.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) has reinforced one of the main points put by those of us on this side of the House who represent Scotland. We all know the knowledge that the hon. Member has on this subject and that he is in close contact with people who are likely to know the conditions touching this matter.
The hon. Member now admits that he is unable to produce any evidence that injustice exists in Scotland as was so widely talked about in respect of England and Wales. I have never heard a Conservative Member demand that such injustices could be rectified, and no Scottish Conservative supporters of the Government have been in the House today except for the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns. He is the only Scottish Tory who has listened to the debate.

Mr. Ross: And he is not a Tory.

Mr. Willis: No, he is a National Liberal. He is the only Scottish supporter of the Government who has taken an interest in the Bill.

Mr. Maclay: What about the Scottish Members on the Front Bench?

Mr. Willis: I shall refer to them in a moment. They are Ministers.
Any attempt to elicit information from the Secretary of State for Scotland has met with most unsatisfactory answers.

Mr. Ross: If any.

Mr. Willis: We asked about local authorities, but the right hon. Gentleman said that he had no evidence from Scotland on the matter. He had heard from people as he walked around Scotland that the local authorities were not acquiring land because they thought that injustice might otherwise be inflicted upon people. We have spoken to local authority members, but I do not think there is much evidence of that at all. How many individual cases has the right hon. Gentleman


had forwarded to him as Secretary of State for Scotland? How many cases have hon. Members behind him sent to the right hon. Gentleman? To what extent has this appeared in the Press?

Mr. Maclay: I cannot comment on this. I could go on giving answers and the hon. Member would always go on saying, "It is unsatisfactory". I wonder how many times he has said that in the last three years? Can he deny that one of the reasons which causes great difficulty and delay, for example in putting a road through an area, is resistance to selling? Can he deny that that is affected by the price which the individual is to get? It is absolutely certain that that is so. I should have thought it was evident, from the number of objectors in the early stages to these various schemes and from the time it takes to confirm them. I am certain that it is so, and this has been confirmed by many people. It is in the Report of the Franks Committee that this is one of the major elements holding up important work and making things very difficult.

Mr. Willis: Some of those cases result from the machinery through which they have to pass. In other cases in Scotland, acquisition of land has been carried through on a basis of satisfactory agreement between seller and buyer. There is no volume of evidence of injustice being prevalent in Scotland. I am of the opinion that the Bill resulted from the pressure of English Members on both sides. The Government then said to the Secretary of State, "We must put you in", and he agreed. Having agreed, he accepted a subsidiary rôle all through by allowing Scottish legislation to be incorporated into a United Kingdom Bill and thus denying to Scottish Members the right to discuss the matter properly in the Scottish Standing Committee. I can understand his unwillingness to go to the Scottish Standing Committee on a matter like this because, in the light of the showing of the Law Officers on previous occasions, discussion on the Bill would have lasted for many months. I can understand that he was not eager to go through that process.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the difference between the compulsory acquisition price and the free market price in Scotland was very much less than it was in England and Wales.

Mr. Maclay: I did not say it was very much less; I said it was smaller.

Mr. Willis: If that is so, how does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the figures he gave in relation to paragraph 4 of the Financial Memorandum? According to my calculation, the proportions in each case for Scotland were practically the same.

Mr. Maclay: I must ask the hon. Member to read very carefully what I said. I spoke as clearly and distinctly as I could and was very careful to qualify things and give things which were a matter of opinion. If he reads my speech, he will see that it is perfectly irreconcilable with what he is saying now.

Mr. Willis: The right hon. Gentleman said that it was smaller in Scotland for a number of reasons and he proceeded to give what he thought were the reasons. I agree that he did it in a very mild manner. He does most things in a very mild manner. That is one of our complaints. On occasion he ought to be something rather more than mild. All I ask now is how he reconciles that with the figures he gave in relation to the expenditure by local authorities in Scotland and paragraph 4 of the Financial Memorandum? According to my calculation, the two statements do not make sense, which leads me to think that the right hon. Gentleman has not very much evidence about this matter and, as we on this side of the House point out, does not know the facts.
Does he, for instance, agree with the English figure for free market value and say that the figure in Scotland is three or four times the value? We were given these facts in relation to England.

Mr. Maclay: I ask the hon. Member to read my speech. I said that sometimes it will double the value and that it can occasionally be higher. Obviously there are isolated cases, but I have given the facts so far as they could be ascertained in Scotland.

Mr. Willis: I heard what the right hon. Gentleman said. Does he agree with the Parliamentary Secretary who opened the debate that the provisions of Part IV, dealing with what he called planning blight, were put into the Bill


to deal with cases of hardship arising among owner occupiers and that those in Scotland were 95 per cent. of the cases in which hardship occurred? Does he agree with that also? We did not have this information for Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman did not give us quite a lot of information. Because he did not give us the information given by the English Minister, most of us on this side of the House are quite convinced that the Government have not got the information in Scotland to the extent to which it is available in England and Wales. That strengthens our case for having another look at this subject before introducing the Bill in Scotland.
It is quite fair to say that we are anxious to do justice to individuals the same as everyone else, but we have to bear in mind that the Bill will place added financial responsibilities on Scottish local authorities. I am not quite certain what those responsibilities will be, but the Bill will certainly place them on those local authorities. In addition to having the responsibility to act justly towards the individual, we also have the responsibility to act fairly to ratepayers and taxpayers in the community as a whole. Therefore, we are bound to ask whether the placing of this additional burden on local authorities in Scotland is the right thing to do unless something else is done to assist them to carry that burden by obtaining some return for betterment.
Undoubtedly one of the great condemnations of the Bill is the fact that it says nothing about that. The Government show no indication at all that they wish to do anything about it. They have not even said that they will look at it. If they said that they thought this was something which ought to be done and that it is fair for the community to recoup itself for the efforts and expenditure it incurs in creating these higher values, we might have been persuaded that the Government had something else in mind besides recoupment of the private landlord.
The Government have given no indication of that, nor promised to look at it. They simply say, "We give up". Whenever we come to questions dealing with land ownership we touch something which matters a very great deal to the Tory Party. We never get very far with

that. They are always anxious to respect those rights to the full. I wish they would respect some other rights of individuals equally. This is the one thing for which they will fight to the last ditch, but when it is a question of taking something from the landowners who have benefited at the expense of the community not a word is said about it.
We should never have had the Bill in Scotland. It is incomplete. We should have been given a better Bill which not only dealt with the question of fairer compensation, but with other aspects of the problem. We should have had the opportunity to deal with it as Scottish hon. Members dealing with the Scottish legal system and applying ourselves to producing a Bill in accordance with conditions in Scotland. We have had none of those things. For these reasons I think this is a very bad Bill.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and his compatriots will not feel insulted when turn from the problems of Scotland to the problems of blight. Early this year the Kent County Development Plan was published. One of the principal features of that plan was Parkway E, which runs through my constituency and which when built, perhaps in 1978, will we hope do much to relieve traffic congestion. Although it is not planned to start construction of that Parkway for nearly twenty years, the line of the route was shown in very great detail.
After the plan for the Parkway had been made known, a fairly major change was made in the route. This caused consternation and the officials at County Hall were approached. They made the fairly obvious point that, as construction was to take place so far ahead, "anything was likely to happen" to the route before the road came into being. A substantial number of people felt that their property was directly affected by the compulsory purchase actions and that they were threatened by the valuation officer. When the route was changed even more people felt that their property was threatened. Next, with the very true observation that anything might happen in the next twenty years, this consternation was spread much further afield.
Not only was consternation caused, but in several cases there was hardship. One of my constituents, a retired member of the Royal Air Force, used his gratuity and large part of his savings, on his retirement, to purchase a house which later was found to be on the supposed line of the Parkway. He took employment with a firm, which then decided to shift him to a different part of the country. He had to move. The house was a good house and he was able to find a prospective purchaser very easily. Then the question of the new Parkway proposal arose and it was discovered that the Parkway would run right through the kitchen of his house. Naturally enough, the prospective buyer of the house immediately withdrew, and for some time it looked as though my constituent, through no fault of his own, would lose a substantial part of his savings through a forced sale made under the threat of sterilisation. The provisions of the Bill will give this constituent and his neighbours good, fair and just protection against these circumstances, over which they have no control.
In welcoming the Bill, I particularly welcome the Clauses about publicity. I have a number of planning committees operating in my constituency and they do their job conscientiously and well. Despite the fact that they do the job conscientiously, a number of constituents come to me to say, "A planning decision has been taken and we knew nothing about it whatever, although it seriously affects the amenities of our property. Now that we know about it we find that the time for making our views felt has passed, and there is nothing we can do." This very sorry state of affairs will come to an end under the provisions of Clause 29, and as far as they apply in my constituency, those provisions should work well. We have a good and vigorous local Press. We have good and vigorous ratepayers' and residents' associations, who can draw the advertisements in the Press to the attention of residents.
There is, however, one possibly serious defect in the Clause. Clearly it will have no effect unless local residents can go to the town halls, look at the planning applications and see exactly what is involved. The Town Clerk of Beckenham wrote to me in the course of some corre-

spondence on this problem which we had some months ago. and I will quote what he said:
I can see no objection to deposited plans being open to public inspection, but there is no provision that says that they are, and my opinion is that they are not. Legislation will be needed on this point.
I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can clear up this point. Are there provisions of copyright which might hinder the free inspection of these plans by the public? If there is anything which local councils might interpret to hinder the inspection of these plans, then clearly the intention of the Clause will be entirely frustrated.
I should also like to welcome Clause 30, which deals with planning applications in respect of property not owned by the man who is making the planning application. As I understand the law at the moment, if I drive to the North and on the way pass the houses of the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) or the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitohison), and if I decide that they would be admirable places for building a small plant for turning out sticky labels, I can submit a planning application without the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. and learned Gentleman knowing anything about it at all. A member of our local planning committee, who has been a member of the committee for some time, has had five planning applications put in front of him in respect of property which he owns, and each time the first thing he has known about these applications has been the request that he should pass them.
That is nonsense and, in addition, is a great waste of the local planning committee's time. I have heard it said that about 40 per cent. of the planning applications which are received by local committees would never arise if it were required that the consent of the owner should be obtained to the application being made.
Clause 30 goes a considerable way towards rectifying that nonsensical situation, but I am a little disturbed by subsection (ii, c) which, it seems to me, would largely negative the intention of the Clause. At the beginning of the Clause very sensible procedure is set out for notifying owners, but in subsection (ii, c) we find that it can all be evaded by merely submitting a certificate saying that one


has not carried it out. It is not even necessary to say why one did not carry out those provisions. I hope that that may well be amended in Committee.
A few days ago I was talking to a senior land valuation officer, and I asked him what he thought of the Bill. He said, "It may make our job easier. That I do not know. It will certainly make it a great deal more pleasant, because the people with whom we have to deal will no longer feel that we are trying to rob them."

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Mr. Probert.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We were led to understand that there would be a Scottish interlude in the debate. Is that interlude over? If so, does not this prove completely that this kind of Scottish participation at all stages in a Bill of this nature is an absolute farce?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Hon. Members representing various parts of the country are called in a debate such as this. A certain number of Scottish Members have been called and I am now calling a Welsh Member for the first time.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Probert: I can reassure my hon. Friend that, as you have said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am the first representative of a Welsh constituency to speak in the debate. I shall not detain the House for long, because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) will, I am sure, forgive me if I do not comment on his arguments. I listened to him attentively and agreed with most of his remarks. I am concerned, however, with a particular part of the Bill.
Most of us are agreed that this is a highly complicated and difficult Measure. I am told, although I was not a Member of the House at the time, that when the 1954 Act was being piloted through the House by the present Prime Minister, very few people in the country understood the Bill. It was alleged, so I am told, that the Prime Minister, who was then the Minister responsible, himself did not understand the Bill.
I shall not waste time in recrimination. although I agree with my hon. Friends, and especially my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), that the present anomalous position of compulsory purchase is one of the direct results of the 1954 Act, for which the Prime Minister was responsible. We have often seen the Minister and hi; Parliamentary Secretary "carrying the baby" and often it is not a very pleasant offspring. During the time that I have been a Member of the House, we have had the Rent Act and the financial provisions of the Local Government Act. Now, we find that the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary are courageously trying to rectify some of the errors for which their own Prime Minister is responsible.
This is a complicated Measure. If each one of us discussed most of what it includes, we should be here until well after Christmas. I am fully and painfully aware of the basic principles dividing the two sides of the House in this matter and I agree with my hon. Friends that the Prime Minister fouled the whole basis of compensation by his 1954 Act, with the inevitable consequence of greater hardship that need not have occurred.
Having said that, I wish to confine my few further remarks to Clause 31. It is about twelve months since I first raised this issue on the Floor of the House. At that time, I instanced many cases of hardship which occurred to owner-occupiers, not merely in my constituency, but in the whole of South Wales. That was done during a debate on the Report on Government Action in Wales. I am exceedingly proud, incidentally, of the high incidence of owner occupation in South Wales. I impress upon the Minister and his supporters, when they make so much of a property-owning democracy, to remember that in the area of the United Kingdom where Labour representation is strongest, owner occupation is highest That is something of which I am proud.
In the earlier debate, I gave many instances of hardship, which I shall not weary the House now by repeating, am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary is not in his place. I have had consultations with him on this matter and on one occasion my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) and I put certain


suggestions to him. I wish to express our gratitude to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Minister for having seen that some of those suggestions, at least, have been included in Clause 31, which goes a long way to remedying some of the problems which occur in planning blight. I do not want to suggest that it is only because of my efforts that the Clause has taken its present form—far from it. I have listened to debates on the matter and I realise that many other hon. Members have been equally concerned.
At one time, I worked in a department of a local authority and was concerned with planning applications. I say quite unequivocally that, despite all our problems of dealing with betterment and the rest, I know of no other difficulty in town and country planning legislation which has caused so much embarrassment to local authorities, and, indeed, to ratepayers, as the worry inflicted upon owner-occupiers in areas which are under what might be called the shadow of a development plan. It is self-evident from what has been said even today—and the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kermsley), who referred to it on a previous occasion, has done so again tonight —that throughout England and Wales, this problem has made the position impossible. Many instances have been cited of progressive local authorities which have to shelve their development plans when they refuse to implement them because of the hardships involved. That is an impossible position.
There are, of course, other consequences of the so-called planning blight, which is the primary cause of an owner occupier's inability to sell his house at a reasonable price. This causes a freezing of the mobility of labour. I know of several instances in my constituency of people who wished to go away to other parts of the country to work being unable to do so because they could not dispose of their houses.
Another hardship which I must stress is that which arises when elderly people find that the house they occupy has become too big for them, their families having grown up, and they would like a smaller house. They cannot sell their large house because it has become unsale-

able and they do not have the money to purchase a smaller house. Consequently, their property is unsaleable and they have to continue paying high rates. In the large cities—I have consulted friends of mine on this matter—where the housing shortage is acute, this is a serious problem.
Many of us could put numerous questions on the Bill, but I do not propose to do so. I ask the Minister, however, to consider three questions, which I will put as briefly as possible. First, is the Slum Clearance Compensation Act, 1956, affected in any way by the provisions of Clause 31 or any other of the provisions of the Bill?
My second question comes in the form of a suggestion. Would it be possible for a prospective seller to receive a certificate from the local authority indicating its acceptance of responsibility under Clause 31? I know that when the Clause becomes law, a local authority will have that responsibility, but such a certificate, if available, would prove of great benefit to the seller, to the prospective purchaser and, I would add, to a building society which may be encouraged to grant a mortgage. More importantly, it would relieve local authorities of much unnecessary purchasing. It is inherent in the Clause that they have to purchase. As we all know, a development plan is merely a plan. Although property or an area may be designated for compulsory purchase, it is often the case that the plan is not fulfilled. It is, therefore, possible for a local authority to purchase property which in the end it does not require.
In this connection, I believe that, if the right hon. Gentleman felt that he could deal with it, it will be as well to advise the building societies to treat this certificate as some degree of security for a mortgage. This would be a simple piece of machinery which might go a long way towards smoothing out some of the difficulties that occur.
There is another point I wish to raise. I am not quite certain, as the Clause stands at present, what will be the position of an owner-occupier who might be the subsequent owner-occupier after the operating date of the Bill. If the present owner-occupier succeeds in selling his property, what will be the position of


the new owner-occupier who at a later date might find that he cannot sell the property at a reasonable price? I do not know what the position will be in circumstances of that kind.
In the speech which I made twelve months ago, I referred to certain paragraphs of the Report of the Franks Committee, and indeed the Parliamentary Secretary referred to them today. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Clause 31 will go a long way to remove the obstacles referred to in those paragraphs. Perhaps this will be more reassuring to some of my hon. Friends, with whom I have had some discussion about the Bill, Personally, if the only thing in the Bill were Clause 31. I should he a very happy man—far happier, indeed, than I am with all the other provisions in it.
Our prerogative in this House has been and still is to alleviate hardship wherever it occurs, and I therefore make no apologies for saying that I am chiefly concerned with the position of the owner-occupier. If, incidentally, we find—and we are fearful on this side of the House about this—that the wealthier sections of the community benefit undeservedly, I shall still say that I am chiefly concerned with the poorer sections. I feel that we should deal with this undeserved benefit by some taxation measure.
I have stated that our primary duty is to see that hardship is removed, and in view of the attempt to do this in Clause 31. I am very grateful to the Minister for its inclusion, for it will remove one very serious degree of hardship. Anything that I and my hon. Friends, as well as hon. Gentlemen opposite, can do to help to remove this hardship will only be fulfilling part of the duties which we undertake when we come here to represent the people who sent us.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Harold Gorden: Owing to the lateness of the hour, I propose to truncate my remarks as much as possible, as a number of other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. I want to take this opportunity of sincerely congratulating the Minister on introducing the Bill, and to associate myself with the remarks of some of my hon. Friends who, in congratulating my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary

Secretary, have asked that the staff in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government should also be congratulated on carrying out the large amount of work that they have had to do during the past year or two.
It is wise to mention these congratulations to the Minister because of the accusations which were levelled against him not many months ago when he introduced another Bill. He was said to be heartless, inhuman and cruel; and I would remind hon. Members opposite that these remarks and their attack upon him went further than this House. They caused people outside to believe these stories about the Minister and to feel very bitter against him. Some of us on this side cannot forget that, because it was a personal attack, and has since proved to be entirely unfounded and not really worth while at all, except for political purposes. I hope that the people will long remember that vicious attack upon my right hon. Friend.
In particular, we should note today that the Minister has brought in a Bill which is quite contrary to the other Bill to which I referred, or at least to the way in which it was described. This is a very human Bill to alleviate suffering; let us be quite fair about this. There are many people who cannot afford to see their property devalued or confiscated on what is supposed to be a compensatory valuation. The word "compensation" has been very much misused in legislation up to date. It has not been compensation by any manner of means, and I do not accuse the Opposition entirely in this matter, because my own party has joined in this misuse of the word. Now, at last, I see that it is to be given its proper meaning, and that there is to be justice in it, because without justice the word "compensation" does not mean anything.
I am rather worried about the Clause relating to blighted property, and as to whether five years is the right term to put upon it. I am also concerned whether we have got the right description for blighted property. I know of property in Birmingham which is blighted not because of a recent planning approval, though some of it is, but because a bus route is being introduced along the very narrow road on which this property


stands, very near to the edge of the pavement. For that reason, the property has a very low value. But it is the same local authority which causes the buses to go there which has devalued that property very considerably because of it. I would, therefore, ask the Minister to look again at the term of five years.
Although I support the Bill, I agree that we should not go in for retrospective legislation. It would be so easy, in this Measure, to legislate retrospectively, but one of the difficulties is to fix the time if we are to put the clock back. We can only be sorry for the people who have to lose by devaluation of their property, as happened to some last year, and I have had to write to some of my constituents who have been waiting to see, as I have, what this Bill provides, and tell them how sorry I am that it will not help them. Some of them are very poor people, who have to live on the old-age pension and National Assistance.
There was a case which was quoted in a Socialist newspaper, not very long ago, of a widow aged 86 who had lived in her property for fifty years until the property was taken over for demolition. The amount of compensation to be paid to her was £25, and although that has been decided since 1948 she has not, up to this year, received the money from the local authority. It means very much to her, because she was drawing £2 13s. 6d. a week in National Assistance, and she has waited since 1948 for her compensation of £25, which would be a fortune to her and which would help her considerably in her difficulties. This is the sort of thing that we have to put up with.
Birmingham, of course, has acquired property on any pretext whatever. It has been acquiring far more property than it needed, and has caused a lot of hardship through acquiring properties under this, that or the other Act. I hope that the Bill will slow down the corporation, because some of the properties which it has taken will not be needed for a good many years to come. Hardship is imposed on people because they can no longer move from a house. I will quote one other case.
A woman, because of housing difficulties, paid £350 for a house. She had to borrow the money from her parents. They loaned it to her because she in

tended to pay it back at £1 a week, but along came the local authority and took over the property ten years before it needed to do so. The local authority owes the woman £65—because this is yet another case where the local authority has not settled—for a perfectly good house which has been taken over just because it does not come up to modern standards.
The woman has not received the money owing to her, but she has to pay the local authority rates and has to pay £1 a week to her parents. These are great hardships on ordinary people, and it is they who suffer most. I am very grateful to the Minister for introducing the Bill.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. G. Lindgren: Far be it from me at this late hour to enliven the debate and bring some colour to it. If it were any other Member than the hon. Member for Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) I should be tempted to go after him in real style, but really it is just humbug to talk about congratulating the Minister. What is he to be congratulated upon? He is only clearing up the mess which the Prime Minister created under the 1954 Town and Country Planning Act.

Mr. Graham Page: Will the hon. Member allow me?

Mr. Lindgren: At least two other hon. Members wish to speak and I am answering the hon. Member for Selly Oak. The £20 which this poor widow is to receive is on the basis of compensation fixed by the Tory Party under the 1954 Act.

Mr. Page: What was it before?

Mr. Lindgren: I will deal with that. I know that the hon. Member for Selly Oak is not quite so vicious as the hon. Member for Corby.

Mr. Page: Crosby. Perhaps now that he has named the wrong constituency the hon. Member will allow me to interrupt and ask him what the compensation would have been between 1947 and 1954.

Mr. Lindgren: It would have been very much the same.

Mr. Page: Of course.

Mr. Lindgren: It would have been the market value, just the same. I shall


have to deal with the fundamentals even at this late stage in the debate. The Tory Party is the landlord's party. It is not in the House to look after poor widows but to look after the landlords. Why have we had to have planning legislation? It is because Tory landlords for generations misused the land. They abused the countryside and made a mess generally of land use.
It is only when we come to a war, when the Tory Party gets a little anxious because men are in the Forces and know how to use arms, that it promises that the injustices of the pre-war days will be put right. There is a whole list of reports by committees and commissions set up by the Tory Party during the inter-war years. But it is admitted that it was only during the war, because the Tory Party was then promising that after the war the pre-war ills would be righted, that it called for the Scott, Barlow and Uthwatt Reports. If land usage was not in a mess, why did the Tories call for those Reports? During the war, the Coalition Government, which was predominantly a Tory Government, accepted the general principles of all three Reports. We have heard a great deal about the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, but the 1947 Act was the implementation of war-time promises by the Tory Government.

Mr. Page: The Uthwatt Report was not carried out.

Mr. Lindgren: The 1947 Act is in general principle the implementation of the Scott and Barlow Reports, but I do not know why I should address the hon. Member for Crosby rather than address the Chair. Perhaps if I turn towards the Chair the hon. Member will not be quite so eager to interrupt.
All planning legislation prior to 1947 had failed. Every piece of planning legislation had been ineffective. Even the Measure passed in 1932, which we tried to work as well as we could during the pre-war years, failed. All the time we were working on interim development orders. We failed in planning because we failed to deal with the basis of planning, which is that if permission to develop is given considerable development value arises, whereas, on the other hand, if a person is refused permission to develop he suffers not a loss but the opportunity of making a profit which he otherwise might

have made. Therefore, in the course of planning permission or planning refusal, two persons can suffer unfairness as between one and the other. The 1947 Act was the first Act of Parliament which made planning possible on a fair, equitable basis, citizen by citizen, because it dealt with compensation and betterment.
The mess that we have seen since the passing of the 1952 Act has resulted entirely from the basis on which the Tory Party works and from its tenderness towards the landlord. Now the Tories are cutting out the entire basis of the 1947 Act. They have dealt with this subject in the 1952, 1953 and 1954 Acts. Two sets of values in the sale of land have been created. This is unfair to a person who has land acquired by a local authority rather than by a private buyer. We on this side of the House said in 1947, and again in 1952, that these two sets of values were unfair and now the Government are righting that injustice.
Look at the position in which the Tory Party has placed the citizens of this country. By the 1952 Act and subsequent Acts it denationalised the development value of the land of the country and gave it back to the landlords. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite say "Hear, hear", but landlords have no right to development values. Who creates the value in land? Not the landlord but the people who come to a locality. As most hon. Members know, I am associated with Welwyn Garden City. When Ebenezer Howard bought the land, he bought it for £40 an acre. Land is now being sold in that area in the region of £30,000 an acre. Why is there this difference? Because when Ebenezer Howard bought it for £40 an acre it was God's green fields and no one was there. Now there are 26,000 people living there. There has been development in roads, sewers and everything else. So it is the community which creates the value in the land, and the landlord takes it all.
This Government have given back all future developments rights to landlords, but inasmuch as some provisions of the 1947 Act are still applicable, if there is a denial of the right to development and an entitlement to compensation, the taxpayer pays. So all the advantages of development are given to the landlord, and where there is an entitlement to compensation, the taxpayer pays. If anyone


can see any greater opportunities available for giving preference to one class of the community at the expense of another, I would like to know of them.
The part of the Bill putting right the dual values we must accept, but this is the wrong way to do it. The only satisfactory way of dealing with the question of land use and planning is by getting back to the general principles of the 1947 Act. I hope that after the next General Election, when a Labour Government are again in power, we shall get back to those principles.
Again, look at the unfairness that has arisen over the change in the basis of compensation and in allowing development charges to landlords. We are now doubling the costs in some cases, particularly in rural areas, because do not forget that it is the smaller urban and smaller rural districts which will be hardest hit by this Bill. The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) is closely associated with the London County Council. This Bill will not make a considerable difference to the London boroughs and to Birmingham, but it will make a considerable difference to the smaller rural and urban boroughs.
The Financial Memorandum states that this will mean an extra 25 per cent. on the cost to the local authorities. That is true on the average, but to many it means far more, and so this burden will be placed on the hard-pressed ratepayers of this country, and not in the main for the benefit of the widow referred to by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, but for the benefit of the large landowner.
There were references earlier to the acquisition of land for road making. May I point out to the House that the driving through of a road creates improvement values on either side. So where this takes place at the expense of the ratepayer, excessive compensation is given for the purchase of the land and there is added also value for the land on either side because it is made frontage land with access to a main road.
We shall not divide the House against the Second Reading of the Bill tonight, mainly because of the provisions referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert). In general, however, the Bill is wrong in priniple. It

has arisen from the wrong action of the Tory Government in undermining the 1947 Act, and we shall not get planning on to a correct basis again until we get back to the principles of that Act.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: I think that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), as always, has enlivened our debate. At times he was a little intemperate, but we are not altogether surprised at that. I think that even if men in the forces learn to carry arms it is clearly unlikely that he will persuade anyone to go to the barricades over the law of compensation and town planning.
It has been interesting this afternoon to listen to one speaker after another from the Opposition benches say not merely that they will not divide against the Bill but that it is a Measure which they have been advocating for years, at any rate, so far as the two-price system is concerned. I think that this will be news to the public, as it is news to many of us here, but, no doubt, it is one of the items of Labour policy which has struck the electorate with all the force of a soggy pancake.
I was interested in what the hon. Gentleman had to say about betterment. We all appreciate that that is a difficult problem. My own feeling about it is that every proposal which has been put forward for reaping betterment has created far more difficulties than benefits, and I do not think it is really possible to do very much more than carry out the setoff provisions in Clause 3.

Mr. Mitchison: I spent a considerable time earlier in the debate in pointing out, hope with force and certainly in detail, that the Tories put in the two-price system and that they refused to accept fair market value as the criterion. Instead of talking about Labour policy, to begin with at any rate, perhaps the hon. Member would tell us whether they were right or wrong then to refuse what they are accepting now.

Mr. Rippon: I am sure that they are right now. I do not want to job back as the hon. Member for Wellingborough has been doing throughout his speech. I am merely saying that what has been said by speakers opposite, including the


hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), will be news to the public, as it is news to many of us here.
Turning to what the hon. Member for Wellingborough had to say on the subject of finance, I think that he will have noticed from the Financial Memorandum.hat this is a matter which will be taken care of under the general grant. I agree with him that the position so far as the large authorities, the county councils and the county boroughs are concerned will be very much easier than for the smaller authorities, and that is a matter which, no doubt, will be well worth looking at in Committee.
I think that we should all be grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the very clear and lucid way in which he explained this complex subject. We are all very conscious of the tremendous amount of preparatory work which has been done by the Minister and his Department, in fulfilling the pledge given last February, that the Government were inquiring into this matter and would consider how best to amend the law.
It is clear from reading the Bill and the Explanatory Memorandum that the Government have done everything possible to hold a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of the community. I think that, whatever criticism is made in detail today or during the Committee stage, there is widespread acceptance, both in this House and in the country as a whole, of the basic principle that land compulsorily acquired should be bought at its open market value, and that is true also for local authorities.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) made so clear the views of the London County Council on this principle. There is a great and growing resentment as a result of the fact that valuation of land and property to be sold to a public authority has been not only a different but a very little understood process compared with the valuation of land to be sold privately.
There is no doubt that the existence of the two-price system has cause much misunderstanding and bitterness and it is a very good thing that we are so united about this in the House today. When that misunderstanding is allied with a sense of injustice at the price to be paid

for land compulsorily acquired, then inevitably the whole system of compulsory purchase tends to fall into disrepute. I believe that process was damaging to the real interests of the country and to good planning.
I am sure that public authorities as well as private landlords will benefit from the adoption of a fair code of compensation. More land will be acquired by agreement. Planning will be speeded up. Friction existing between the public and local authorities will be diminished. Above all, justice will be done to those dispossessed of their property in the public interest.
There are two tests by which legislation should be judged. First, is it just? Second, is it capable of being generally understood? The Bill satisfies the first test, but I am by no means certain that it satisfies the second. I think the Bill fully deserves a Second Reading. I am sure it is pursuing the right policy. I would not by any means grudge the draftsmen a tribute for their skill and ingenuity, but I do not believe it is always a good thing for legislation to be too ingenious and too detailed.
An objection to the Private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Captain Corfield) was that it consisted of only six pages whereas the present Bill has seventy-seven. My view is that it is unwise to judge legislation by its length. It was said that my hon. and gallant Friend's Bill over-simplified "fair market value" and involved sweeping away forty years of case law. I will not argue tonight whether sweeping away forty years of chaotic verbiage is or is not a simplification, but what I am inclined to think is that the Bill as it now stands may create new and avoidable complications.
I may be wrong about this, because I am sure that the general aims and objects of the Bill are sound, but I am not satisfied that in order to modify the rules of the 1919 Act to fit them to a system of comprehensive planning it is necessary to have Clause after Clause hingeing on development for which planning permission might reasonably be expected to be granted in the opinion of the planning authority and the Minister.
This point has already been raised in a forceful letter in The Times of 8th November written by Mr. Elliot FitzGibbon, a man with great practical experience of these matters. First, I think there are great practical difficulties in relying too closely on development plans for this purpose, and if we do we can expect every review of them to bring a host of objections designed to protect compensation claims, so that on the one hand we shall reduce now the number of public inquiries into compulsory acquisition but we may increase the number of objections to development plans, Secondly, it seems to me unfortunate that when Part III of the Bill does so much to implement the recommendations of the Franks Committee we should place so much reliance on the planning authority's certificate and the Minister's decision for the purposes of Part I. I have a feeling that if when the Franks Committee was sitting this provision had been in force it might have had something to say about it.
I think Mr. FitzGibbon successfully posed the problem, but I do not think he has found the solution. It may be that I cannot suggest one either. He suggested that all that is necessary is to adopt the formula contained in Section 85 (4) of the 1947 Act and simply assume that planning permission will be granted for any development by virtue of which the use of the land will he made to correspond with the use which prevails generally in the case of contiguous or adjacent land. I do not think that is an adequate solution, but I would ask the Government to consider the possibility of a more simple and straightforward amendment of the 1919 Act Rules for the assessment of compensation which are set out in the Annexe to what I think we all agree has been an extremely helpful Explanatory Memorandum.
Rule 2 might read something like this:
The value of the land shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be taken to be the amount which the land if sold in the open market by a willing seller might be expected to realise; provided always that in assessing the potential development value the tribunal shall

(a) assume that planning permission would be granted in accordance with the proposals of the acquiring authorities;
(b) have regard to the prevailing use of contiguous or adjacent land; and

(c) have regard to the provisions of any development plan in force at the date of the notice to treat."

That is, in effect, a reasonably slight modification of the existing law. Point (a) is in the Bill already, point (b) allows the tribunal to have regard to contiguous use but does not bind it, and (c) would enable it to have regard to the provisions of the development plan.
Valuation is not and cannot be an exact science, and in any event the other rules give the Lands Tribunal a very wide discretion in coming to a fairer assessment of compensation, in default of agreement between the parties, in the light of the circumstances of each case. However complicated the provisions which we include in the Bill, in the end it will be a matter of fact which someone will have to determine in the light of facts of each case. The discretion given to the Lands Tribunal could be safely extended. The Franks Committee made no criticism of the working of the Lands Tribunal and reported that virtually no criticism of it was received.
In this case, it may be that the term "tribunal" causes some misunderstanding and confusion. The Lands Tribunal is in effect a court which acts judicially and which is held in high regard and from which, in the ordinary course of events, there is a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal and, if necessary, the House of Lords. In assessing open market value, it would have regard to the very considerations which we are trying to set out in so much detail in the Bill, but it would have a discretion. It it had that discretion, we would avoid the planning authority and the Minister being judges in their own cause, and we would obviate the danger of development plans becoming arbitrary measures of value.
Bearing in mind the fundamental need to have a comprehensible code of compensation, further misunderstandings are likely to arise if we maintain the provision limiting the operation of the Bill to notices to treat served after 29th October this year. I am bound to say that I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden). The ordinary objections to retrospective legislation do not apply in a case of this kind. It is obviously impossible to reopen cases where compensation has already been paid or agreed, but I cannot see any fundamental objection to providing that the


Bill shall apply to all outstanding notices to treat, compensation being determined as at present on the basis of the value of the land at the date of the notice to treat, subject, of course, to the welcome special provision dealing with long-standing notices to treat.
I know it is not an easy matter, but it would be a great pity if, having recognised the difficulties caused by the existing two-price system, Parliament proceeded to pass a Bill meaning that we would have two parallel and different codes of valuation in operation for several years to come. There are many other aspects of the Bill which deserve consideration and commendation, but I must leave them to other speakers. It was said of Franklin and Lincoln that they never made a speech for more than ten minutes. That is a very good rule, but they never had to contend with modern legislation.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) and to his plea for justice for the individual. The difference between the two sides of the House is that hon. Members opposite are not much concerned with the interests of the community. They are more concerned with the private interests of people, many of whom can well look after themselves, while our concern is for the community.
It is important that we should not forget the wider implications involved in this matter. In the Financial Memorandum some astounding figures are given to show the effects the Bill will have. Government Departments buying land will find the costs of acquisition increased by between £1 million and£1½ million a year. On the basis of 1957–58 values local authorities which have to acquire land will find that the additional capital cost of acquisition will amount to about £8 million. In addition, in respect of the acquisition of roads by the Ministry of Transport and the Secretary of State for Scotland, an additional £1 million will be required, and in respect of Clauses 31 and 33 Government Departments will find themselves paying an extra £2 million, approximately, each year for the acquisition of land. The cost to local authorities of acquiring owner-occupied property under Clause 31 is not stated, except in

relation to the increased grant anticipated from the Exchequer being offset by rents and income which may be received from such owner-occupied property as may be taken over.
To the extent that we can collect these figures together, we find that a sum of at least £12 million will be involved. It will cost local authorities and Government Departments an additional £12 million to acquire the land necessary in order that their functions may continue. That £12 million represents value which landowners have not created but which has been created by the community and local authorities, by the expenditure of public moneys. That sum will be handed over, in the main, to landowners, many of whom are very rich men, and most of the value will accrue to land situated on the boundaries of towns which are in a stage of development.
Hon. Members opposite appear to think that that is quite natural and normal, and that the landowner is entitled to take the benefit of something that he has done nothing to create. I do not regard this handing over of £12 million to private individuals as being justice. There is a stronger term that I should like to use, but I had better not mention it in this House.

Mr. Ross: Have a go.

Mr. Sparks: Sooner or later the problem will have to be tackled comprehensively. I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of man to devise a means to recover for the community the land values which it creates. Hon. Members opposite may disagree, and think that private individuals should pocket the money. That is the gulf between us. However, even the party opposite may have to do something abate this situation before many years elapse, because the fact remains that the development plans which now exist have automatically enhanced the value of a great deal of land, particularly land which lies near towns in the stage of development. I have not the time to discuss whether all these development plans were necessary; that point has already been dealt with by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).
The mere fact of the production of development plans has enhanced the value of the land. In addition, the value


will increase as local authorities spend money on the development of housing and factory sites and the extension of towns. These local authorities will be required to spend a great deal of money on such developments and then, when they require more land to continue that work, they will have to pay the private individuals from whom the land is purchased at a value which has been created by the activities of the local authorities themselves.
Therefore, I think that eventually the cost of putting into operation their own development plans will be so great that it will be impossible for local authorities to carry the resulting financial burden. That is one of the reasons why before 1947 we had unregulated development in many of our towns. Local authorities found it impossible to control that development in the interests of the community. By these measures hon. Members opposite will make it almost impossible for development plans to be executed, because of the heavy financial commitments falling upon local authorities.
At the moment it is difficult for local authorities to acquire land in advance of their requirements. Normally the Minister will not sanction the acquisition of land unless local authorities have an immediate use for it. A very good proposition is contained in Clause 33 of the Bill. The Explanatory Memorandum states:
This Clause extends the powers of local authorities in England and Wales to buy land compulsorily for purposes of town development. They will now be able to buy ahead of immediate requirements if the Minister is satisfied that they will need the land within ten years. This provision gives power similar to that which authorities already have under the Housing Acts, and will in some measure enable them to avoid paying for values created by their own expenditure as the town development progresses.
All honour to the Minister for including that provision. It will save local authorities considerable sums of money if they are to be allowed to acquire land immediately, to be used for purposes which may not eventuate until, say, ten years later. They will be able to control this problem created by the growing financial burden resulting from the acquisition of land for their own purposes. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to make it possible for local

authorities to be able to acquire land in advance of their requirements, not merely for housing purposes but for all purposes. They will thus be able to avoid having to pay very much more for the land than if they had to wait for five or ten years before they did it.
The Bill puts right in some respects anomalies in the existing system, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the proposals do not provide a solution for the main problem which underlies the Bill. Sooner or later the problem will have to be tackled, despite the fact that there have been failures in days gone by, if local authorities and the community are to carry out their responsibilities.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. James MacCol1: One of the strangest remarks in the debate was made by the Parliamentary Secretary, when he paid tribute to the helpfulness of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Captain Corfield). That was a most amazing example of kissing the rod.
The House will remember what happened last February. The hon. and gallant Member introduced his most embarrassing Private Member's Bill. The Minister implored, begged him, to withdraw it and told his hon. and gallant Friend that in no circumstances could he advise Government supporters to support the Bill. In the event, the whole of the party behind the Government went into the Division Lobby against the advice of the Minister and in support of the Bill.
The Minister, after taking that firm stand and being decisively rejected, now finds himself called upon to introduce a Bill which, in many substantial ways, resembles the Bill of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South. I was about the only hon. Member who stuck up for the Minister. That was a dangerous thing to do at that time. I begged my hon. Friends to be kind to the Minister, who was getting knocked about a good deal for something that was not his fault. He had been left as a catspaw to rescue the Government out of the mess in which the Prime Minister, by his earlier incursion into these complicated matters, had left them. It was a bit hard on the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local


Government that he should get the blame for something that was not his fault. It is a danger, and I recognise that it is a danger. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are in an exposed position and there is a great temptation to give them a kick. I do not want to rub in too much the point that was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). This is entirely a matter of the mess that the Government have been making. I would not now rub in this fact except that it is so characteristic of Government policy.
I remember once going to a primary school to present a medal to a small boy who had cleverly and courageously rescued another boy from drowning. I did my best to improve the occasion, in very moving words. Afterwards, the headmistress said, "I wish you wouldn't lay it on so thick. All my 10-year-olds will now be pushing small boys into the pond in order to get prizes for rescuing them." That is exactly what the Government do. They go round from one field of activity to another pushing unfortunate people into ponds and dragging them out again, amid the frantic cheers of the Government publicity agents.
This is precisely what has happened here. The trouble here is entirely the fault of the Government. That point has been made again and again in the debate, and I do not want to repeat it, except to observe that the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) fell into the same trap when he tried to say that in some way we were responsible for the trouble.
There are three errors, coming one after the other, which the Government have made and which have led to the present mess. The first error they made was to wreck the 1947 Act. I am one who is not ashamed to say that I think the 1947 solution to this problem was not only a courageous solution, but was a workable solution, which would have solved these problems if it had been given a chance. The point was made earlier in the debate that development charges were unpopular. I think that that was due to the fact that people had to pay charges before they collected compensation out of the £300 million.
It was said that it discouraged development, but I think that the two things which discouraged development were, first, the

Earl Fitzwilliam case, which held up compulsory purchase until it was settled, and as soon as it was settled in favour of the Central Land Board the Government stepped in and abolished the Board. The second thing which discouraged development was building shortages. Either was sufficient. in itself to discourage development without the 1947 Act procedure being responsible. Once they had wrecked that, it was extremely difficult to know how to recover from their impetuous action.
The second error was the two-price system, about which we made our criticisms in 1954. They have been repeated and reinforced this afternoon. The Government made the error of establishing the two-price system, which was bound to lead to these feelings of injustice and unrest. Then the Government wasted their time between 1954 and 1958. The 1947 system was a complicated and difficult system, but it was established after a long and careful examination of the position. The blessed trinity of Uthwatt, Barlow and Scott produced portentous, complicated and careful Reports on the whole matter, the Coalition Government produced a White Paper on the Control of Land Use and the Labour Government produced a White Paper and a Bill.
The present Government have done nothing in the way of looking at this porblem since 1954. If they had said, in 1955, "We realise that this is a temporary solution we realise the inherent instability of the two-price system and, therefore, we are now going to set up another Uthwatt Committee to see whether there is an alternative to the 1947 and 1954 solutions of the problem", they might have produced a serious and considered Bill. They have done nothing but drift until a back bench revolt last February forced them, precipitately, without due consideration, to produce this rather hotch-potch Bill.
The Bill will not really do as much as people think it will do. There has been a lot of talk about the iniquities of not getting full market value, but the hardship does not come from not getting market value for it comes from what one pays for an alternative piece of land when dispossessed by compulsory purchase. That is affected by having the two prices. If there is a consistently lower price in the market it does not


make it any less difficult for the dispossessed person than if there is a higher price in the market, but, the Government having got themselves into the position of the two-price system, clearly something had to be done. That is why we shall not prevent the Government from scrambling out of the mess, into which they have got, by voting against the Bill tonight.
This distinction between keeping the two-price system for planning restrictions and abolishing it for compulsory purchase will, I think, be very dangerous. The Parliamentary Secretary said that he has not had very much complaint about it. That is rather like the old-fashioned idea of curing a boy's toothache by beating his backside. If we cause so much trouble by having the two-price system on the bigger problem of compulsory purchase, people do not very much concern themselves with planning restrictions, but if we remove it in the case of compulsory purchase I think we shall get a good deal of complaint where compensation for planning restriction is based on 1947 development value.
As I understand—I may be quite wrong about this and, if so, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to correct me—we are to have the extraordinary situation that if the planning authority, in making restrictions, goes so far that it tips the balance sufficiently for it to be possible for the landowner to make an application under Section 19 of the 1947 Act for the purchase of the land, then full market value is paid. But if the restrictions keep sufficiently short of Section 19 for only compensation to be payable and not purchase price, then the owner will be limited in the amount he gets, and that will make a considerable distinction between one landowner and another, which is precisely the injustice which the Bill is supposed to remedy.
I welcome the provisions for reducing the price in the case of comprehensive development areas and designated new towns. That is extremely sensible and admirable, but it is very hard luck on the landowner who happens to be in a designated new town, because he will get less than his neighbour across the road in the area outside the town, and he will make sufficient complaints and write enough letters to Members of Parliament about that.
I do not blame the Government here, because these difficulties are inherent in the problem unless we have a comprehensive system. The trouble about the Government, as so often is the case, is that they have not faced up to the idea of going back completely to a free market, which is probably the logical and sensible thing for them to do if they are consistent. They have shrunk from doing that, but have left themselves in a position of hedging here and hedging there to make compromises as between the two systems. The result will be that we shall continue some of the unjustices which already exist.
It is a little difficult to understand how we shall calculate market value, and no doubt in Committee we shall have the chance to look at it a little more carefully. There are three possible assumptions, which the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned. The first two are fairly easy to understand, but the third assumption is the hypothetical and imaginary one where we invite the planning authority to try to think of what possible planning permission it might give under hypothetical circumstances. Surely that will lead to extraordinary anomalies and make market value, not the price paid in the market, as the public believe, but the result of an extraordinarily complicated piece of imaginative thinking on the part of the district valuer. It will not be a figure that one can test by going out to look at the market, which is what people think.
I therefore believe that we shall still have very many of the difficulties which arise at the moment, the feelings of injustice which arise at the moment and the feeling that land values are complicated, theoretical and arbitrary. They will not be rooted on any kind of firm basis of market price. At the same time, we shall provide a very heavy burden upon the public authorities and a lot of undeserved money for people at the expense of the public, the local authorities and of the ratepayers. That, again, is how the Bill fits in with the general picture of Government legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) expressed the view that what the Bill did for the little man, for the owner-occupier, made it worth while risking the fact that other people would get a lot out of it, and that is an understandable point of view. It is, however, a rather dangerous view,


because it is precisely what happened when the Government introduced de-rating of commercial property.
Then we had the most harrowing accounts of widows with their little grocery shops who would have crippling rates to pay. Heartrending pictures were put before us of the little man struggling to keep his head above water. Behind it all, what happened was that the banks, the insurance companies and the chain stores made enormous amounts out of the rate subsidy, which is what it amounted to. This business of having the big corporations and the big landowners stalking behind the skirts of the widow is something about which we must be careful.

Mr. Probert: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not wish to misrepresent me. What I said was that if wealthier sections of the community benefited undeservedly from these provisions, taxation measures were the best way to cure the evil.

Mr. MacColl: I was not wanting to quarrel with my hon. Friend. I was coming on to say that I agreed with him about the importance of dealing with the owner-occupier. The sensible way to tackle this problem is precisely to tackle first the problem of the hardship case. On this we all agree. There is a case for saying that the owner-occupier is in a different position from somebody else, because, in the first place, he is immobile. He usually has to live in a particular area; he cannot move away. He is, therefore, very much open to hardship. The other person, however, is in the position of an investor who sinks money in land or property and is not tied to one place. The first answer, therefore, is to help the owner-occupier by ensuring that he does not suffer through compulsory purchase.
The hon. and gallant Member for Gloucestershire, South scoffed at the Government's suggestion that hardship could not be dealt with and said that hardship would be easy to administer. That was because the hon. and gallant Member wanted to extend Clause 31 to cover industrial and commercial interests as well as owner occupiers. If it is easy to administer hardship to extend it, the same method

could be used also to deal with the particular cases of owner occupiers. More justice would be done by having some system of equivalent reinstatement for the benefit of the person affected.
One of the main causes of the hardship that arises is that if a person who is faced with compulsory purchase wants to buy another house in which to live, he has to pay the full price. Therefore, if compensation was based on equivalent reinstatement and the person affected was offered somewhere else to go, this would meet the special difficulties to which I am referring.
That is not a case for paying out large sums to people who will get compensation, not for something which they have bought, but for something which they hope to have. That is the whole point about the difference between development value and existing use value. Under the 1947 Act or the 1954 Act, a person has always been paid for what he possesses at current value. If premises are used as a house or shop, that is an existing use and that is the use for which the owner is paid. He gets paid at current prices for it. The problem is whether it is right to use the same kind of yardstick for paying somebody for something which is hypothetical. It is the hope that eventually one will have a supermarket on one's ploughed field—and why should the ratepayer have to pay enormous compensation to somebody who has a ploughed field simply because he hopes that some day there will be a supermarket on it?
If the House feels that that is an extremist and wild point of view to adopt, may I make my own humble contribution to the quotations from the Prime Minister which have been given us so frequently today? I was much honoured in the debates in 1952 because the Prime Minister sufficiently recognised my existence to interrupt me. I felt that that was the big moment in my public career —that I was thought of sufficient importance for that. We were talking about this problem of the two prices. He said:
I said that there was a great difference between the position where there was a question of the existing use value being taken and a man deprived of a home or a farm, and this question of a potential profit. They are two absolutely separate points."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1953; Vol. 508. c. 1170]


I think that the Prime Minister was right. I think that anybody would agree that, in common justice, they are two quite different things.
My other great authority for making this distinction is no less a person than the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley), who was speaking in one of his English moods. We are always honoured by the hon. Gentleman, who is bivocal. At one time he will be talking on an English Bill and talking at great length, and at another talking on a Scottish Bill and talking an equally long time. This was an English Bill, and the hon. Gentleman was honouring us with his expert views. This is a quotation from the debate in 1954, and the hon. Gentleman was talking about compensation on 1947 values. He said:
I am led to think that such theoretical injustice as there may be in basing compensation for compulsory acquisition upon values back in 1947 is outweighed by the administrative convenience of being able so to do in view of the fact that these values are already made and agreed.
But I am not so sure about the theoretical injustice of the business. Ever since the 1947 legislation, landowners have not expected any more."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 118.]
That is the really important point, and that is the difference between the owner-occupier and the ordinary investor in property.
The investor in property goes to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns for his professional advice, and the hon. Gentleman tells him the position, what the risks are of compulsory acquisition, and that is one of the factors which are taken into account in the price which they pay for the land. These gentlemen are businessmen. They know precisely, and they are advised by people like the hon. Gentleman, who can tell them precisely how much weight to give to the chance and how much to knock off the price. The poor owner-occupier is in a very different position, because he is not able to pay for the professional advice of the hon. Gentleman. He is, therefore, sometimes liable to make unwise bargains or to be compelled by the housing shortage to make them.
What are we to do about it? That is the problem which the Government have to tackle. I believe that the effect of the Bill is bound to be to increase very

much the need for local authorities to buy ahead of their needs. That is the point made in the White Paper and was also the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary when he said that, in the case of people who were suffering from planning blight, but who did not come within the four corners of the Clause, the local authorities should be encouraged to buy in advance. I welcome that most warmly, but I should like to know whether, if it is right for the local authorities to help the small property owner, they are to be allowed to buy ahead to protect themselves from the large property owner. The one is as important as the other.
If a local authority is going into development in the future, if it is not to be held up to ransom by people who say, "We are going to have a multiple store or a super-market in the middle of the ploughed field", it must be able to buy the ploughed field, ten, fifteen or twenty years before it thinks that development will reach it. That is the only way in which we can be sure that the result of the local authority's wisdom and the efforts that it and the whole community is putting in development shall come to the public.
People talk about this sometimes as if it were just a question, on the one hand, of local authorities developing the value of land and, on the other hand, of private people. That is not right. The question is whether the effort of the community —private businessmen, workers living in an area, the local authority, the people who provide the services, the doctors and everybody else—is to be added to the value of the land for the benefit of the landowner or to go back to be shared by those people through the local authorities who are the representatives of the community.
It is a much bigger question. It is not just allowing local authorities to cut out their little share in the form of betterment. The important question, which is social justice, is that the whole of the increment and the betterment not due to the efforts of an individual landowner should come back to the community. That is the big and very fundamental point which separates our approach to the problem from that of the Government.
I hope that the Minister will be charitable and allow local authorities to buy


land in advance. He ought to consider whether he can allow them more discretion to buy more land without coming to him for leave. All the toil and sweat of the Local Government Act was to give local authorities more freedom. Here is a field where, surely, they ought not to have to wait for the right hon. Gentleman to produce his permission. I think that it would encourage them to plan, looking ahead and looking after the interests of their community, if they were given freedom to do this.
I think that it is right not to vote against the Bill. We all recognise that this is a pitiful mess which, owing to the blunderings of the Prime Minister, has caused a great deal of hardship, quite unnecessarily, to deserving people. I would say, therefore, that from the ambulance side, the need to rescue people and prevent hardship, we ought not to appose the Bill on Second Reading. But we ought also to make perfectly clear that we are well aware, and the whole country is well aware, that behind the necessary part of the Bill is a very calculated and cynical design to see that a great deal of money goes from the public to people who do not deserve it and do not need it.

9.29 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Henry Brooke): Those closing words of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) are totally untrue. The purpose of a Second Reading debate is to discuss the principle of a Bill. It is certainly gratifying to the Government that practically nothing has been said from any quarter against the main simple principle of the Bill. It is true that there have been some carping criticisms from the other side of the House on points of detail and omission, but that carping criticism is in marked contrast to the almost universal welcome which the Bill has had from the public outside. Indeed, I am grateful for the way it has been received by the Press and by the public. The preparation of so far-reaching a Bill as this is a considerable undertaking, and I know that the officials who serve all Governments equally faithfully will be gratified by what has been said about their hard work by a number of hon. Members.
In past months I have read a great deal of the assertions of the Liberal Party that it is Liberals who stand up

for the rights of the individual in these matters. I cannot help noting, therefore, that almost entirely throughout this debate the Liberal benches have been entirely empty and that not one Liberal Member has attempted to contribute to our discussion.
It is interesting, and pleasing too, that the local authority world, though it will have to pay more as the result of this Bill, nevertheless has approved its general principles. There has been very little criticism in those quarters, and, instead, a general recognition that it is an impediment to good local government if a local authority, seeking to do what is in the public interest in some acquisition of land, is nevertheless forced by law to permit such injustice to an individual that it is intolerable to public opinion. Where that has happened, local authorities in many cases have swerved away, and consequently the public interest has not been served.
In reply to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), who I am sorry is not in his place and who alleged that this was a Bill to benefit landowners who are very rich men, may I say that I am perhaps in a better position than himself to see individual cases, because they have come to me when a compulsory purchase order has been before me for confirmation. I have read my inspector's report on the inquiry, and I have appreciated how great would be the potential hardship to individuals of obviously no great substance if I confirmed an order for which, on public grounds, there was a good case to be made—and yet where, if I did so, there was no question that the individual concerned, a man of no great substance, would have a grievance against Parliament; and we would have no defence whatever by which we could assert that justice was being done to him. It is to do justice to owners of all land, and to all kinds of owners of land that the Bill has been introduced.
Nor do I believe for one moment, as the hon. Member for Acton alleged, that local authorities will be frustrated by the Bill in carrying out their duties. The Bill marks a return to the 1919 rules for compensation, but it takes into account the fact that since 1919 we have had set up an elaborate system of planning control; and that leads to a number of complicated Clauses in the Bill, to which


my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) referred in his admirable speech.
I do not dissent for one moment from what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) about the credentials of the members of the Uthwatt Committee, but a great deal has happened since that Committee reported. This system of planning control has been established, and the circumstances now are wholly different from those which existed then. I submit to the House, therefore, that if one were to raise an argument against the Bill on what the Uthwatt Committee said, one would probably from the outset of one's argument be out of date.

Mr. Mitchison: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He explained to us the reasons for his repentance and he is now turning to other matters. Before he goes on with them, would he at least admit that this is repentance and that the Prime Minister has been thrown out with the bathwater?

Mr. Brooke: I remember the hon. and learned Gentleman said in his speech that the moribund penitent has always been a person who merited compassion. I am inclined to think that he is moribund but not penitent.

Mr. Mitchison: I have no reason to be; the right hon. Gentleman has.

Mr. Brooke: I say that because he harks back to the time of the 1947 Act, and I believe that he still has faith in the development charge. The mess that we are clearing up is the mess left by the 1947 Act. The 1953 and 1954 Acts went some way in that direction and now this Bill is needed some years later, in the light of present circumstances, to complete that process so far as we can. If I were to presume to say that there will never be another Bill on this subject, it would indeed be dangerous; but certainly we are now setting right a major injustice, which came into existence in this country initially through the working of the 1947 Act.
The main Opposition demand in this debate has been that provisions on betterment should be included, and I will come to that before I sit down. In addition, a number of specific points have been raised by hon. Members on both sides.

I am grateful to them and I should like, so far as I can, to answer them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South urged that legislation should not be too detailed and said that if it were so it might create new and unavoidable complications. Of course, if the legislation is vague it also may create work for lawyers. The object of the Bill is to try, so far as we can, to enable valuers and all concerned to put a precise figure where they are called upon to do so and not to have to guess.
I shall be very willing indeed in Committee to listen to my hon. Friends or to other hon. Members who have suggestions for improving these detailed, complicated Clauses. I am not claiming that every letter of the Bill is sacrosanct. I shall welcome the assistance of all hon. Members on both sides in Committee in seeing if we can improve it. It is an honest attempt and, I think, a successful attempt on the part of the Government to legislate comprehensively over this field.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Captain Corfield), who certainly has made for himself a position of leadership in this respect, questioned the provision in Clause 1 that the new basis of compensation should apply to all cases where notice to treat was served after the introduction of the Bill. He suggested that it might extend to cases where notice to treat had been served previously but the transaction had not been completed. I think that he had some such formula as that in Clause 12 in mind.
It is, of course, an accepted principle that compensation is assessed on value as at the date of notice to treat, and if his suggestion were adopted we should have the new basis applying as from all sorts of different dates in the past according to the particular notice. I think that that would lead to confusion, just as much as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South and other hon. Members think that it will lead to confusion, and we should have two systems of compensation running concurrently. I am very anxious to go into all these matters, but I warn the House that one cannot clear up a mess like this, which has been going on for ten years, and guarantee in advance that one can eliminate every single case of hardship.
I shall certainly take note of what my hon. and gallant Friend said about Clause 12. I do not think that we shall have local authorities suddenly reviving the comatose compulsory purchase orders that go back ten to twenty years, and seeking to complete the proceedings before the Bill has reached the Statute Book. But let us examine that further in Committee. It is certainly not the Government's intention that that should happen.
Curiously little has been said in the debate about Clauses 3 to 6. These were referred to in a letter in The Times, which some hon. Members have mentioned. The suggestion there was that they were altogether too complicated, and that we might cut out the complexities and rely simply on prevailing use value. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South perceived that there were defects in that proposal. The value of land in the open market depends almost entirely on what can be done with the land. The market, therefore, is concerned more with prevailing future use than with prevailing existing use. If the suggestion in the letter were adopted, it seems to me that if one had a case where land was being bought in an area at present entirely agricultural, but allocated in the development plan for housing, then the prevailing use would be agricultural. If the suggestion in the letter were adopted, the 1947 Act formula would give only agricultural value. That seemed to the Government to be unfair, and the provisions in the Bill would secure housing value. Indeed, these complicated provisions are designed not to put more power into the hands of the Minister, as the letter alleged, but to make as sure as possible that justice is done to the individual.
I should like to take up the point about the treatment of comprehensive development areas. The hon. Member for Acton and other hon. Members had that in mind. In such an area radical changes are to be expected. For instance, the layout of the roads may be completely altered. If the compensation were to be based in detail on the new layout, manifest unfairness would result. Under the Bill, the valuer will have to take account of the range of uses proposed in the plan for the comprehensive development area, but in valuing a particular piece of land he will have

to ignore the new layout and the new use proposed in the plan for that piece of land. Instead, he will have to find the value of the land for whichever of the new uses proposed might reasonably have been permitted if there had been no scheme of comprehensive development.
That sounds complicated, but, briefly, this is what it means. If there are two people owning adjoining houses in an area of comprehensive redevelopment and the houses front a main road in which similar houses have already been converted into shops, and the two houses, not yet converted, are compulsorily acquired, they will both be dealt with on the same basis; that is, they will be given a value as though there were permission for shopping development on the old main road frontage and as if there had been no scheme of comprehensive development. If we did not make these provisions, the two houses might be given completely different values if there were different uses under the new layout for the two neighbouring sites.
One or two hon. Members referred to the question of new towns. I know there is some interest in that subject, and I should like to explain what will happen. Within the designated area of a new town under the Bill we shall go over to current market value subject to the exclusion of any increased value or any loss of value due to the development or prospects of development in the course of construction of the new town. This provision will be found in Clause 7. As an example, a plot of land in a designated area which has planning permission for the erection of a house would be bought at the price that such a plot would fetch in a private sale as though any roads and sewers or other services provided in the course of the development of the new town did not exist and as if there was no development corporation to provide them. The demand for housing land would be judged as the demand which there would have been without a new town. I realise that this sets a difficult task, for the valuers, but I am assured that they can undertake it.
It will mean that a landowner can argue that even if the area had not been chosen as the site for a new town, it was so obviously a place for development that the original small town, onto which the new town was grafted, would have


grown anyway, and that would have given the land development value.
I shall now deal with the difficult question of slum clearance sites. I know that there is strong feeling that some small sites are now getting only £1 or 10s. value in compensation. The Bill makes a difference, because it removes the conception of existing use value. Under the present provisions, the valuation has to take account of what could be put back on the original site, and very often that is too small for a house of present standards.
The compensation payable under the Bill will be the price which the cleared site would fetch in the open market with planning permission for the future use which would have been permitted if the local authority had not made a compulsory purchase order, but subject to the limitation that it will not receive more than the full market value which the house would have had if not unfit.
The effect will be that where the future use is to be commercial or industrial, there may be a considerable increase in compensation; and where the future use of the land is to be housing, it will depend on the character of the area and the strength of the demand for the land. If the area is attractive for housing, compensation will be increased.

Mr. MacColl: I am not clear about the working if the use is to be industrial. If it is a case of one or two houses being demolished, will the procedure be to take the value of the whole site as developed industrially, and then take the factor of the value of that zone?

Mr. Brooke: No. The procedure will be to take each site by itself, but to assess its value having regard to whether it is to be redeveloped for housing, or industry, or whatever it may be.
The trouble is that some of these slum clearance schemes are in areas where there is very little demand at present and where it is extremely hard for anybody to establish that there would be any private purchasers in the market for the land. This is a matter which should be further examined in Committee, but I cannot let pass the suggestion that under the Bill a local authority may be able to buy a dozen plots for £1 a piece and then sell the whole for £3,000.

Sir James Duncan: My right hon. Friend has referred to a cleared site. Does the value which the owner gets include or exclude the cost of clearance?

Mr. Brooke: In England—and I am speaking only of England—if a compulsory purchase order is made, the cost of demolition is not charged to the owner of the site.
There were questions about Clause 14 and the limitation to five years of the period during which an additional payment could be claimed by the owner if what might be called an improved planning permission were given in the interval. The Government view is that five years is a reasonable period. Some of my hon. Friends have argued that it should be longer. That is a Committee point. I cannot accept the argument from the Opposition that if a local authority, having freely decided to buy some land, then decides to use it for a less profitable use than was at first intended, it should be able to claim back from the owner some of the purchase price. That seems to be nonsense. It fails to make the necessary distinction between the man who is acting voluntarily and the man acting under compulsion.
Part II frees local authorities from a number of aggravating controls. I cannot give an unqualified promise that local authorities will always be given loan sanction for advance purchase, but the whole of Part II is an indication of the Government's general view that local authorities should have greater independence in carrying out land transactions by agreement. Local authorities can naturally only buy within their statutory powers; they cannot speculate in land. But it may well be that when the Bill is passed local authorities acting prudently will desire to buy more extensively in advance than they have hitherto. That is part of the answer to the hon. Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) who raised questions about town development. The rest of the answer is in Clause 33, which gives local authorities the same freedom to purchase in advance for town development purposes as they already have for housing purchases.
Not much has been said about Part III, which implements a number of Franks Committee recommendations. I trust that that means that our action is wholly


acceptable to the House. I was especially glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) approved Clauses 29 and 30. He asked whether the public had a right to inspect plans deposited with applications for planning permission. The answer is that the public have not the right to inspect the plans, but they can inspect the register of planning applications, which, however, gives only brief particulars of the proposals.
I now come to the question of planning blight. I am grateful for the approval which both sides of the House have given to these provisions. The statutory right to claim that the local authority shall purchase is limited to owner-occupiers because we believe that they suffer the principal hardship. The owners of property for investment purposes are not under the same compulsion to sell and to realise cash as is the owner-occupier who needs to move elsewhere.
I would point out, however—since this has not been fully appreciated either in this debate or outside the House—that there is a change in Government policy which will affect this whole field. Outside the statutory provisions local authorities and public authorities generally will have discretion to purchase in advance other types of property besides the residential owner-occupied property. Hitherto the bias of Government policy has been against their doing that. Loan sanction has been grudgingly given, and Exchequer grants have not been available until the actual development took place. Now, by Clauses 35 and 36, and a promise of a change in administrative policy, all that is being reversed, and the Government will in future be encouraging local authorities to meet cases of hardship by purchasing in advance.
Nevertheless, I appreciate that this will deserve further discussion in Committee. I would only ask hon. Members not to put local authorities in a position where they may have to take over the property of any industrial or commercial firm which chooses its time for unloading upon them.
I also promise the hon. Member for Peckham that I will look into the point she raised in connection with Clause 36.

Mr. Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to make any reference to the fact that certain Scottish speeches were

made? Are we not to be given the dignity of a reply?

Mr. Brooke: I think that those points were replied to as the debate proceeded. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland explained the Scottish Clauses, and I dare to forecast that some attention will be paid to the Scottish provisions in Committee.
I wish to devote my closing words to what appears to be the main argument of the Opposition, that some provision regarding betterment should be introduced. I noticed that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) said that we should go back to the principles of the 1947 Act, though when the 1953 legislation was before the House he said that he was prepared to admit that the 1947 Act had not quite worked out in practice. Most of us will take that as an understatement.

Mr. Mitchison: Principles and practice are different.

Mr. Brooke: Principles and practice are very different. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering, who murmured that, used in his speech phrases such as the whole profit of the efforts of the community." It is quite impossible, as was said by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in his excellent speech, to proceed on the basis of oratorical phrases. One has to translate them into action. Anybody who seriously wishes to put up proposals for the reclaiming of betterment must address himself from the outset to certain practical questions.
Is betterment to be taxed on the occasion when it is realised, or is there to be a periodic tax, whether it has been realised or not? Is any betterment to be taxed or only that part which has not been created by the owner's expenditure or efforts; and if the latter, who is to make the distinction? How is it to be made in practice? Is all unearned betterment to be taxed, or only the unearned betterment of the development value; and, above all, betterment since what date? That question is fundamental, and if we take a date in the past, how on earth are we to know what the value then was?
Any political party which advocates a system of betterment and shirks practical


questions of that kind is simply misleading the public. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price) said that the Conservative Party has always disliked dealing systematically with betterment. There may be truth in that, but the Socialist Party has tried to deal systematically with betterment and has utterly failed. We are not going to seek in this Bill to do something which we believe to be impracticable and which would have the fatal defect that it would end up by treating different owners differently, according to whether they were selling voluntarily or under compulsion. Common sense says that if one's land is taken compulsorily, one should receive some special recognition of that fact. The Opposition say that for land taken compulsorily, a person should receive less and not more. That appears to us to be the essence of injustice, and it is justice which we seek to establish by this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision as to compensation in respect of the compulsory acquisition of land, and as to other matters relating to the acquisition, appropriation and disposal of land by public authorities; to make provision as to proceedings in respect of certain matters arising under the Town and Country Planning Acts, 1947 to 1954, and the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts, 1947 to 1954, and as to applications for planning permission under those Acts; and to make further provision as to procedure in connection with statutory inquiries, as to compensation for damage to requisitioned land, and as to advances and contributions to highway authorities in respect of land acquired for roads, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(i) any administrative expenses incurred by the Minister of Housing and Local Government or the Secretary of State in

consequence of the passing of the said Act of the present Session;
(ii) any sums necessary to enable any Minister of the Crown or government department to pay any amount becoming payable by that Minister or department under any provisions of that Act conferring a right to compensation or additional consideration where land is developed, or permission is granted (or deemed to be granted) for the development thereof, after it has been acquired;
(iii) any sums necessary to enable any Minister of the Crown or government department, in pursuance of any provisions contained in that Act in that behalf, to make payments to persons displaced or disturbed in consequence of the acquisition of land by that Minister or department;
(iv) any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under any other enactment;

(b) any increase in the sums becoming payable into the Exchequer under section sixty-four of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1954, or under section sixty-four of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1954, being an increase attributable to any provisions of the said Act of the present Session for amending either of those sections or for amending section fifty-two of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1954, or section fifty-four of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1954.—[Mr. H Brooke]

9.59 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I was hoping that we were to have an explanation of this Money Resolution from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury who, according to the Order Paper, was to move the Motion in Committee of the whole House. I do not see the hon. and learned Gentleman present but, even so, I was hoping that someone else had been deputed to carry out that task. I think it something which is worth while considering.
I want, first, to move a comprehensive vote of thanks to the Treasury for what it has succeeded in doing. We have just had a very interesting debate, albeit Scots Members did not get very much opportunity to participate in it. The Bill we were debating runs for 45 Clauses and has eight Schedules, but the discussion took place mostly upon the Explanatory Memorandum, which itself ran to 134 paragraphs and two appendices. Now, in this Money Resolution, we find the Treasury managing to get the details into the compass of about 32 lines. We should pay tribute to the Treasury's ability.
There is another reason why we should scan this Money Resolution carefully. Whether hon. Gentlemen know it or not, upon the nature of this Resolution will depend what we shall be able to discuss in Committee. It is no good the Patronage Secretary shaking his head. I have been in the House a little longer than he has, and one of the things that I have learned during my thirteen years here is that we must consider Money Resolutions very carefully, because when we seek to improve a Bill in Committee we may easily discover that our improvements are outwith the Money Resolution.
This is one of the points we have taken up with the Secretary of State for Scotland when, occasionally, we have managed to get him to take a Bill to the Scottish Standing Committee. The point is that the Money Resolution is usually drawn so tightly that improvements are impossible. I am thinking of Housing Bills or of Bills like the finance Bill in relation to local authorities, that we had last Session, when we could not improve matters for the local authorities because of the Money Resolution. I would ask now whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has arrived yet.

Mr. E. G. Willis: What about the Solicitor-General for Scotland?

Mr. Ross: I want to put a few questions about this Money Resolution to the Minister. Unlike most of the Money Resolutions we have had, this one is drawn very widely indeed. In fact, the point was raised during questions on business, earlier today, by the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson), when he referred to control of the Executive and of expenditure. I am surprised that Government supporters are not rising to question the wisdom of allowing this Money Resolution to pass. We read that it is
to make further provision as to compensation.
There is no limit, so far as I can see, in relation to compensation. The Resolution goes on to say, after the Preamble. that
it is expedient to authorise—
(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—
(i) any administrative expenses…

That means any expenses arising out of the Bill. It would include the printing of labels, irrespective of how they are dispensed.
The Resolution says:
(ii) any sums necessary to enable any Minister of the Crown…
"Any sums." That is fantastically wide, when we consider some of the things that have been raised today. We had a suggestion from an hon. Gentleman who takes a leading part in local government affairs on the Conservative side, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon). He made a plea for retrospective compensation. He would like to bring in a great number of cases in which notice to treat has already been given, but where the actual calculation of compensation has not been finalised. Am I right in saying that there is power within this Money Resolution for the Minister of Housing and Local Government to accede to such an Amendment?
So far as I can see, there is no limiting provision within this Money Resolution which would enable the Chair to rule the hon. Member out of order. This is the kind of thing that we on this side of the Committee have been up against time and again in respect of other legislation. When a subsidy was being reduced from £42 to £24 we tried to suggest going half-way and making it £30, but we were ruled out of order. This Resolution is so wide—I hope either to be contradicted or confirmed in my belief—as to have no restricting effect.
Another question which is being raised is that of planning blight. As the Bill is drawn, the right is given to owner-occupiers to unload that on to local authorities. There has been more than one plea for that to be extended to commercial and industrial premises. When we examine the Money Resolution we find that an Amendment along those lines would be acceptable and within the provisions. Why is it that the Treasury, which usually rules so tightly on Money Resolutions and helps Secretaries of State and Ministers of Housing and Local Government out of the difficulty of facing unpleasant Amendments in Committee, this time has drawn the Resolution so wide as to enable additional provisions to be put in which, in some cases, will affect Government expenditure?
Is it a fact that under the Bill not only will the Exchequer be liable, but local treasurers and ratepayers? Is it for that reason that the Financial Secretary is prepared to ask us to accept such a widely drawn Money Resolution? If so, as in the past, it shows that he has great concern for Government expenditure but very much less concern about the liabilities of ratepayers.
I still hope that when the hon. and learned Gentleman comes into the Committee it will not be necessary for me to recapitulate my speech. These are important matters and they have to be answered for by the person who put this Money Resolution on the Order Paper. It is bad enough to have the subject of an Adjournment changed, and for hon. Members to try to make speeches on other matters of which they have not given notice, but when a Minister of the Crown give notice to move a Resolution and is not present to nod agreement with it, that is a matter for complaint from both sides of the Committee.
Another point we have to consider is what the Treasury is to do with this money after it has got it. We are giving the Treasury the money to collect and it will appear in Votes added to the Votes we have passed in the current financial year. Before we give the Treasury the right to collect that money, we have to consider the wisdom of doing so. How is it to be expended? We did not get much information from the Secretary of State for Scotland, who did not talk of the principles of the Bill at all. He tried to excuse the legislative servility which he has displayed during the whole humiliating situation in which Scotland has been patchworked through the English Bill. He gave us little or no information about what will happen to Scottish local authorities if we pass the Money Resolution.
There is no guarantee in the Act which dealt with block grants that these authorities will get any additional money in this respect, and before we allow the Government to get away with the Money Resolution we should point out that Scottish local authorities which incur additional expenditure as a result of the Bill will not receive a return from the Exchequer in accordance with their expen-

diture, because the return will go into an aggregate block grant and local authorities which have carried out nothing at all may get a share of it.
I had hoped that this matter would be covered by a skilfully drawn Money Resolution, but there is no indication of that. It may be that it is wrong of me to go on in this way and that I am mistrusting the Treasury and the Secretary of State, but we have had no statement of the position from the Treasury tonight. I do not think there is a member of the Treasury present.
Another important point which we must consider arises from the limitations of the Treasury in respect of
the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of
the various sums mentioned in the Money Resolution. We read:
any increase in the sums becoming payable into the Exchequer under section sixty-four of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1954
and any Bill of the present Session.
Perhaps hon. Members will, however, look at Clause 34 of the Bill, which I remember is near to one of the few Clauses in the Bill which has even a glimmering of sense and intelligibility about it. I refer to the Clause which says:
This section shall not apply to Scotland.
If hon. Members look at page 48 of the Bill they will see that I am right and that my memory has not failed me. Clause 34, entitled,
Acquisition of land in connection with town development schemes in Scotland",
is preceded by the sentence
This Section shall not apply to Scotland.
That refers, of course, to Clause 33. I could not fail to remember that.
Clause 34 permits local authorities to acquire land compulsorily for purposes in connection with town development schemes under Part II of the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act, 1957, even though that land is not immediately needed. That will lead to considerably increased expenditure on the part of local authorities in respect of these town development schemes. We were told by the Secretary of State that this will be met by direct grant under the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act, but there is no reference in the Money Resolution to meeting additional expense arising out of changes made in


respect of the 1957 Act. As far as I can see, it is not covered by the Money Resolution.
I therefore question the wisdom of the Secretary of State in telling us gaily, "It is all right. Local authorities will be recompensed to the tune of 75 per cent. of their additional expenditure." I think that someone from the Treasury should be here to answer what I think are very important questions. I will rest my case there at the moment, but I am sure that many of my hon. Friends will be equally anxious to make it clear that we are wise in not allowing this matter to pass lightly.

10.15 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has asked a number of questions about the Money Resolution and he made some remarks about the absence of a Treasury Minister.

Mr. Willis: On a point of order, Sir Charles. May I have your guidance? I, too, have a number of Scottish points to raise on this Financial Resolution. Will it be in order for the Secretary of State to speak twice upon it?

The Chairman: Yes. We are in Committee and can speak a thousand times if we like.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: On a point of order. This Motion appears in the name of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is not here. Can anybody else move it in his absence?

The Chairman: One member of the Government can reply for another.

Mr. Maclay: If those hon. Members who have raised the point study precedents, they will find that the practice or principle that one member of the Government can answer for another goes back to 1921.
I should like briefly to explain what the Financial Resolution does. In the latter part of his speech, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock asked a number of questions which one hon. Member or another asked during the debate. I am certain that it would be wrong for me to repeat my Second Reading speech, because I dealt with every point raised by the hon. Member about the 75 per cent. and all these other matters arising

under the Bill. If the hon. Member wants an explanation, here it is.
I should have thought that the Financial Resolution was fairly straightforward. Paragraph (a) covers expenditure under four headings corresponding to those in Clause 42 of the Bill. The first is the administrative expenses of the Minister and the Secretary of State. Clearly, a certain flexibility is required as to what these must be. The second heading is the additional compensation payable by Government Departments under Clauses 14 to 16 when additional development occurs after land is acquired. Clearly, the hon. Member understands what that means. The third point is the payments by Government Departments to persons displaced under Clause 11. Nothing could be more clear, specific or exact. The fourth point covered is any increase, due to the Bill, in expenditure under any other Act. That is a clear and precise statement. It could not be drawn in clearer terms
Paragraph (iii) covers the main increase in expenditure due to a change in market value. This is not mentioned specifically —I know that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock gives these matters great attention, but this is an interesting and slightly difficult one—because the liability to pay compensation arises under other Acts. The Bill merely amends the basis on which it is assessed. That is quite clear. Paragraph (iv) also covers increases in Exchequer grants to local authorities, a very necessary provision.
Paragraph (b) covers increases in payments into the Exchequer under Clause 37, which amends the powers of the Minister and of the Secretary of State to recover certain sums from local authorities under Section 52 of the 1954 Act and the corresponding Scottish provision. These sums are payable into the Exchequer by virtue of Section 64 of the 1954 Act.
That is a clear, concise and detailed explanation of what this Financial Resolution does and it is right that I should explain these matters. At the beginning of his remarks, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock said that the Resolution was in wide terms. What he is complaining about is that he has nothing to complain about in it. That is the most I could get from his remarks. There is not much more that I can say helpfully to the Committee.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: I do not for one moment accept that the Secretary of State for Scotland can speak for England and Wales in this matter.

Mr. Ross: He cannot even speak for Scotland.

Mr. Sparks: He may be interpreting the Money Resolution in relation to the situation in Scotland, but I am not satisfied with his explanation.
First, what we must realise is that if we accept the Financial Memorandum, a substantial sum of money—over £12 million—is to be given as a private gift to landowners out of the public purse. How it is to be provided out of the public purse as a free gift to landowners is supposed to be contained, I presume, in this Money Resolution.
There are some factors connected with this Money Resolution and its financial implications that deserve, and ought to have, further consideration. For instance, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in winding up the debate on Second Reading, referred among other things to agricultural land which was zoned for residential purposes. I think he argued from that that the value of land for residential purposes would be paid by way of compensation, rather than the agricultural value of that land. He said that there was a great deal of difference between the two values.
We can go one step further than that, and we can say that that agricultural land might well be zoned for industrial uses, which would mean a still higher value than that of residential land. To illustrate the problems which will face the authorities in finding this money, I would quote, for instance, the fact that the value of agricultural land, equating it, more or less, with values in my own area, might be somewhere between £2,000 and £3,000 an acre as vacant land, and £10,000, £15,000 or £20,000 an acre as land which is zoned and planned for industrial use. The difference between the two values, which might run into many thousands of pounds for one acre of land, must be provided for as a result of the proposals in this Money Resolution.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is not here to move this Money Resolution, but, during the time of the Labour Government between 1945 and

1951, hon. Members opposite, who then sat on this side, would never allow a Money Resolution to pass through "on the nod". They kept us here for hours, always insisting that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury should explain the Financial Resolution to the Committee. We have been particularly lenient, and we have allowed a number of these Money Resolutions to go through "on the nod". In this case, in view of the importance of the Bill and the large sums of money that are to be taken out of the public purse and handed over as gifts to private landowners, I think the Committee is entitled to a detailed explanation of the financial liabilities that will fall upon the various bodies.
The Ministry of Transport, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the local authorities are all in this, and all have to provide money for this purpose. In some cases, we are not quite clear what the liabilities are likely to be. I believe that the local authorities will be involved in a far greater expenditure than the right hon. Gentleman himself seems to think is likely to be the case.
If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had been present I would have asked him to indicate to the Committee precisely the cost to the local authorities of giving effect to Clause 31. This Clause requires local authorities to take over owner-occupied properties in their areas and acquire them at the market value. I also believe that other parts of the Bill provide not only that owner-occupied property, but other properties, such as shops, offices, factories and industries, may be acquired. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman begged his hon. Friends not to allow a situation to develop in which all this was unloaded upon a local authority.
In many of these areas where a development plan exists local authorities have to undertake extensive reconstruction of an area. They cannot do it in twelve months. It may be a ten-year job, but under the Bill the local authorities would be or could be required to buy all the houses and factories, shops and offices in that area. In that case it would cost them many millions of pounds. They would not be able to redevelop that area within a period of ten years, which means that at the outset they would be


saddled with a heavy capital cost of acquisition. Added to that would be the cost of demolition and clearance of sites, and added to that again there would be the new construction in the redevelopment area. This involves a colossal sum of money to local authorities, all of which comes out of the public purse.
I feel, therefore, that we are not being awkward when we ask that the responsible Treasury Minister should be here to explain the implications of the Money Resolution. As far as I can see, it is so widely drafted that it is not merely a question of £12 million a year being handed over to private landowners from the public purse. There may well be considerable sums of money in advance of what is anticipated in the Bill. Therefore, some more precise information is due to the Committee on how the Bill will work in relation to local authorities, Government Departments, the Ministry of Transport, and all the

other Government and public bodies that are involved in this matter.
The Secretary of State for Scotland, with all respect, may have been seeking to appease my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and other Scottish Members, but we in our turn would like to have an English interpretation of the Money Resolution and to be assured that we are not giving unlimited gifts from the public purse to land racketeers and landowners for something which they themselves have done nothing to assist in creating and to which they are not entitled. We cannot see the Financial Secretary anywhere on the horizon. I wonder whether a message ought not to be sent to him to come here to explain precisely what financial obligations will devolve upon the respective Government and public departments as a result of the provisions of the Bill.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I trust that the right hon Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he gives the information for which my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has just asked in relation to the expenditure likely to be incurred under Clause 31, might also break it down into the expenditure in Scotland and the expenditure in England and Wales. One of the troubles with the Bill is that we have the very difficult job of disentangling the Scottish provisions from the English provisions and of finding the facts in relation to Scotland.
I should like to have some assurances about the provisions of Clause 15 (7) which reads:
(7) In the application of this section to Scotland, for any reference to section sixteen of the Act of 1947 there shall be substituted a reference to section fourteen of the Scottish Act of 1947; and the preceding provisions of this section, except subsection (6), shall apply to claims for additional consideration such as is mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (9) of the last preceding subsection as they apply to claims for compensation payable under that section, with the substitution, for any reference to the person entitled to receive the compensation or purchase price in respect of such an acquisition or sale as is mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, of a reference to any person who has received consideration under section one hundred and eight of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845 (as read with section sixty-two of the Scottish Act of 1954) in respect of such an acquisition or sale.
I do not see any reference in the Financial Resolution to the Land Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845. Therefore, I should like to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say about it. When we examine the financial memorandum which explains the Financial Resolution and gives us an indication of what we are now being asked to pass, we are told that the net increase due to the inclusion of additional loan charges in the expenditure of local authorities by reference to which such grants are determined is not likely to exceed £150,000 per annum initially but will increase annually.
If I have the proposition correctly, I gather from that and from the figures provided by the Secretary of State during the Second Reading that, while the local authorities in Scotland can expect to

face a bill of about £250,000 or £300,000, what the Treasury is called upon to meet is about £6,000. Is that correct? In other words, it is easy to be boastful about being generous at the expense of the local authorities when the Exchequer will contribute only £6,000 under the Resolution. We ought to have a statement about this from the right hon Gentleman.
Further on we are told that the increased expenditure in respect of rates is about £1x million. The Secretary of State told us that the additional expenditure under the Clause in respect of rates in Scotland would be £20.000. That is one-fiftieth of the expected total national increase. Why is the sum for Scotland so small? Why is the sum that we are being asked to vote in respect of rates so very much larger for England than for Scotland?
Also, does the Financial Resolution include provision for a vast expansion of the road programme? During his speech the right hon. Gentleman said that the work on our roads was being held up because of the inadequacy of the compensation arrangements under the present compulsory acquisition procedure. He said everyone knows that it is delaying matters. He interrupted my speech to emphasise that the present arrangements were so inadequate that the programme was being held up. If we pass the Bill can we expect a very much larger road programme in Scotland, and will the Clause allow the Government to meet the additional financial outlay incurred by the expansion?
Of course, there are quite a number of points about which we should like to ask, but I am a very modest sort of individual—modest in my demands upon the Secretary of State for Scotland. We ought, too, to have a splitting up of the figures in the Financial Memorandum. Paragraph 6 says:
Clause 37 amends section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1954 (and corresponding Scottish provisions)"—
I like the casual manner in which Scotland is slung into the Bill—
with the following effects:—
(a) to clarify the powers of the Central Land Board to recover from acquiring authorities amounts paid to owners under


Part I of the Act of 1954 in respect of past transactions; this will facilitate the recovery of about £250,000 which is still outstanding.
How much is outstanding in Scotland? I think we ought to have that figure.
The right hon. Gentleman, of course, recalls the fact that we had a special Committee set up to deal with the problem of disentangling Scottish figures from United Kingdom figures, and I think it is only right that he should assist Scottish people to understand what is going on.
Then there is sub-paragraph (b) which states:
to make provision corresponding to section 52 (6) (a), under which the amount recovered in the last financial year was some £50.000.
How much of that was in Scotland? I think that we ought to be told that too. Then there is sub-paragraph (c) which states:
to repeal the powers of section 52 (6) (b), under which the Central Land Board have recovered only £5,000 to date.
How much was recovered in Scotland? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us more of these details. He has treated us rather shabbily about the Bill. He seems to doubt that, but he has only to look at the Scottish Members to realise that there is a very large volume of opinion very angry with him for the manner in which he has treated us over the Bill.
The least that the right hon. Gentleman can do now is to provide us with this information, particularly this financial information, because one of the bones of contention in Scotland is that we do not have our financial statements split sufficiently to enable us to understand what Scotland is contributing and getting out of things. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to answer the questions which I have put to him before we pass the Money Resolution.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: I understand that earlier this evening the Minister expressed his regret at the absence of Liberal representation on these benches. Of course, I appreciate his interest in that regard, and I hope that he will find an opportunity before the end of this debate to express his regret that, at the moment, only some eleven Con-

servative back benchers see fit to be present and that he has not been able to persuade any Treasury Minister to attend while a Money Resolution is being discussed. While I accept the right hon. Gentleman's rebuke, I hope that he will show his impartiality by extending it to other spheres.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: I am always willing to try to help all hon. Members of the Committee, as I think is well known. I would point out to the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) that at the time when there was a certain lack of bodies on the Liberal benches.—[Interruption.] One must not be parochial. The English must not get as parochial as all that. I must point out that the Liberal interest has been admirably looked after in years past by a number of Liberal Unionists elected to this House. Although I might be straining the debate as far as the Money Resolution is concerned, I think that I ought to give some comfort to the hon. Member for Cardigan.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether there is any provision for a contribution to Liberal Unionist funds?

Mr. Maclay: If I pursue this line of country, I shall not be strictly within the terms of the Motion.
I cannot help feeling that there has been a certain confusion about some of the matters which have been raised, for the Financial Resolution and the Financial Memorandum are not the same thing. I hope that I gave a fairly clear and lucid explanation of the Financial Resolution when I spoke earlier today. Some of the questions asked about the Financial Memorandum raised matters which will be considered at a later stage and which are not strictly related to the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Willis: We are being asked to pass a Resolution to cover expenditures which are explained in the Financial Memorandum. I am sure that it is pertinent to question some of the expenditures.

Mr. Maclay: I said some of the matters. Much of the detail of what I have been asked has already been covered earlier. I am always nervous about how far one can go when one is speaking on


a Financial Resolution. The estimate for roads expenditure, for instance, is the best that my advisers and I can obtain. Hon. Members will have noticed that the countryside through which some Scottish roads run—apart from the industrial belt —is lonely, unlike comparable roads in England, and they do not carry high values.

Mr. Bowen: The same is true for Wales.

Mr. Maclay: Far be it from me to speak for Wales. I have enough to do speaking for Scotland.
That explains why there is a certain disparity in the conclusions which hon. Members opposite have drawn. For instance, I was asked about the passage in the Financial Memorandum which reads:
The net increase due to the inclusion of additional loan charges in the expenditure by reference to which such grants are determined is not likely to exceed £150,000 per annum initially but will increase annually.
Hon. Members asked me to split up that figure and give the figure for Scotland. If hon. Members study what I said earlier, they will see it all explained. Too detailed explanations would require complicated analysis and statistical computation. This matter has been adequately and fully explained, as I am certain hon. Members will concede when they have considered it.
The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) asked a number of questions. He will find the explanations to most of the queries he raised in the Financial Memorandum. With the utmost goodwill, I cannot help feeling that these things must be clear to hon. Members who have read the Financial Memorandum and the Financial Resolution and listened to the debate, as I am sure hon. Members opposite have. I should be trespassing on the patience of the House if I tried to explain matters further.

Mr. Ross: I asked two very important questions to which I have not had answers. I suggested that, unlike previous Money Resolutions, this Resolution was drawn very wide. I instanced certain matters raised in debate and asked whether it would be open to hon. Members to raise those subjects in Committee and whether, because of the width of the Money Resolution, it would be possible in Committee for hon. Members to discuss the fact that local authorities will have far heavier

burdens of compensation while very little liability will fall on the Treasury, and whether it would be open to the Minister to accept Amendments dealing with that and similar matters. That is purely a matter of fact, and I can surely have an answer to it.
Secondly, if my assumption is correct, was it done deliberately? We cannot but note that the liabilities arising out of any changes which may take place in Committee as a result of drawing this Money Resolution in this way will put fresh and increasing burdens upon local authorities and accrue to the benefit of the landowners. Is that why it was done? Can I have a simple answer to that question?

Mr. Willis: If the right hon. Gentleman does not know the answer to the point I raised in connection with Clause 15 (6), will he send for the Solicitor-General for Scotland or the Lord Advocate in order that we can have an answer? We did not get an answer to that question. The right hon. Gentleman said nothing about it, or about my reference to the Central Land Board. He might at least have said that he would provide the figures later on. It is not good enough to try to fob us off with a lot of pleasant generalities which do not mean very much.

Mr. Maclay: It is at least a concession that the generalities were pleasant. The question of the Central Land Board is a Committee point.

Mr. Ross: But we will not be on the Committee.

Mr. Maclay: How does the hon. Member know that? Various points have been raised, and I am anxious to deal with them seriously and, I hope, conclusively. As for the point raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, the Money Resolution is concerned with payments made out of the Treasury, and not by local authorities. I hesitate to suggest it to the hon. Member, but when listening to him I thought that there was a slight confusion on his part. I believe he wanted to know whether there was some ingenious drafting of this Money Resolution in order to allow something to happen which he thinks ought not to happen. Is that his point?

Mr. Mitchison: Perhaps I might help the right hon. Gentleman and my hon.


Friend. I can tell the Minister what I believe to be the substance of the matter. My hon. Friend's question—if I did not misunderstand him; he will no doubt tell me if I did—was this Can local authorities be called on to incur further expenditure without Treasury assistance, or with only a small amount of Treasury assistance, under the wide terms of this Money Resolution? There is no reference, as there often is, to the equalisation grant, or anything of that sort. It looks to me, as it does to my hon. Friend, that Amendments in Committee could put an indefinite burden on local authorities, certainly if there were a small Treasury contribution.
I see the Minister for Housing and Local Government shaking his head. I hope that there is no difference of opinion between the two occupants of the Front Bench. If there is it would he better to have two Bills.

Mr. Maclay: I cannot anticipate what will be the rulings of the Chairman of the Committee. That is quite impossible for me to do. I said earlier that it seemed to me that the point of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock was that the Money Resolution had been drawn wide so as to allow a wide discussion in Committee, and he therefore had nothing to complain of. I cannot venture further into a prejudging of the ruling of the Chairman of the Committee. But I repeat what I tried so hard to get over earlier—and hoped that I had—that the effect of this Bill on cost is small.

Mr. Ross: That is not in the Money Resolution.

Mr. Maclay: It arises out of what the hon. Gentleman was questioning. I do not think I can usefully add anything to that. I cannot dodge the issue, but it would be wrong for me to try to prejudge the decision of the Chairman of the Committee.
I did say earlier that the Money Resolution has been drawn fairly widely. I have always understood that, from the point of view of hon. Members who sit on the back benches, that was a desirable thing. In this case the Money Resolution has been so drawn with that very much in mind.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — B.B.C. SCHOOLS BROADCAST (GENERAL STRIKE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

10.51 p.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: It is a matter of regret to me that the subject of this debate is a charge brought by my hon. Friends and myself against the B.B.C. for transmitting a biased and false account of the General Strike to the schoolchildren of this country. I should have thought that the one occasion on which bias should be absent and where the facts should be objectively stated was in the transmission of lessons to schoolchildren. I hope to prove that the lesson delivered on 22nd October, called. "Stanley Baldwin: The General Strike of 1926"—was a poisonous travesty. The B.B.C., for whom in many respects I have great admiration because of the good work it does, seems to have fallen down badly in this matter.
Before these transmissions are made, a synopsis of the lesson is issued to the school teachers and, I presume, to the pupils. I quote from this synopsis. It says on page 14—"Modern History. Autumn Term, 1958"—
For years the Government had been paying a subsidy to the coalowners on every ton of coal mined to enable them to pay the miners the wages agreed upon by the miners' unions in the various coalfields.
That is a lie. It states that this had been going on for years. In actual fact the subsidy did not commence to be payable until 1st August, and continued for ten months. Why was it phrased in that way? Here is a further quotation:
The miners and the other unions were thus attempting to force the Government to spend part of the taxpayers' money on a coal subsidy.
That is a lie. The miners never made such a demand after 1925. The T.U.C. and the General Council did not make such a demand. It never featured in any demand made by the miners in connection with this dispute. That is the sort of outlook which permeated die whole of the broadcast.
Through the good offices of the Librarian of this House, I have been able to get a copy of the script, and it


is a very queer copy. It is a copy which contains a number of obliterations. Let us take the opening as it was first of all made by the man who, I presume, was responsible for the broadcast. He says this:
The General Strike of 1926 arose out of a dispute in the coal mining industry. It was a very big sympathetic strike, intended to help the coal miners who were having a dispute with the coal owners.
That section of this script was obliterated. The reference to a sympathetic strike to help the miners was obliterated from the transmission. One finds time after time throughout the script these obliterations, and it seems that each obliteration from the script contained a partially sympathetic reference either to the T.U.C. or to the miners. The script starts, as indicating what was transmitted, in this way:
Our story must begin in the year 1925, the year before the General Strike. In that year also there was a dispute in the coal mining industry, in fact, disputes were occurring every year between the private colliery companies who worked the mines and the miners trade unions.
It is surprising to me to call that merely a dispute. If the matter had been made clear further on perhaps there might have been some justification for it, but, to describe what happened between the miners and the mine owners as a dispute in 1925 is like describing what happened between Hitler and Czechoslovakia as a dispute between Germany and Czechoslovakia. Worse is to follow. The so-called dispute is described by the voice of a coal owner saying:
In the past year, that is 1924–25, the export market for coal has dropped disastrously, coal prices are falling and must fall still further. An increase in wages would be suicide. It would destroy the whole coal industry. We ask coal miners to accept lower wages.
Is that what the coal owners asked for? It was not what the coal owners asked for at all. It was not merely a cut in wages, it was a cut of 13 per cent. It was not merely a cut in wages that was asked for, it was the abolition of the Miners Federation of Great Britain as the negotiating body, the non-recognition of the miners national union. They went a step further. The coal owners were also demanding something which was entirely illegal, that the miners should work an extra hour a day. There may

be some excuse for all this, but it seems amazing. The thing is made worse still when another coal owner's voice is used to say:
While we are in business we must make a profit. We cannot pay the present wages unless we do make a profit. In South Yorkshire the miners average wage is four pounds five, in South Wales it is four pounds two. In Northumberland the average wage is three pounds ten a week…
I do not know where the script writer got that from. The B.B.C. ought to be more careful. Why did it not look at the Report of the Secretary for Mines? Instead of the Yorkshire miners having an average wage of £4 5s., it was £2 16s. The miners average wage in South Wales was not £4 2s.; it was £2 15s., and the miners average wage in Northumberland was not £3 10s.; it was £2 7s. All this could have been checked. Why was it not checked? What was the purpose of falsifying the wages which the miners of this country were receiving unless it were to put them in the position, in the historian's eyes, of being able to afford a reduction in the miserly wages that they were receiving?
The narrator's voice is then brought in. He says,
Thus a whole year before the General Strike the mineowners had said the miners must be content with less wages and longer hours. But the miners had very powerful and well-organised trade unions. They said, 'No,' and all the other trade unions agreed that the miners were right to say ' No,' and they told the Government that they would all strike together at the same time.
But the miners were not going to strike. The miners were going to be locked out. If there were to be a national strike it could arise only if the coal owners locked out the miners. There was no attempt made at all in the script to put the facts fairly and clearly in the minds of the children who were to listen to it.
Let me continue a little further. I read that the trade unionists were prepared for a general strike and the Government were not. If anyone reads Mr. Jimmy Thomas's biography or the speech which he made in the House on the following Wednesday, they will see that Mr. Jimmy Thomas said that never in his life had he crawled so much and talked and pleaded so much in order to avoid a strike. Yet we are told in the script that the trade unions were challenging the Government; not that the mineowners


were challenging the Government, but that the trade unions were challenging the Government. The truth was that the Government were not prepared to back the coal owners at that stage, and that the sparking off of a general strike could be done only by the coal owners locking out the miners.
Then the narrator describes how Baldwin had agreed to pay a subsidy of £10 million to the mining industry for the purpose of the Government getting ready to back the coal owners. He might, incidentally, have mentioned that the £10 million was in fact £24 million and that it was in a year in which the coal owners made a profit of £26 million.
I am afraid that this is a biased account of what happened—an attempt, in effect, to put the miners in an ugly light and to create disrespect for the miners' union in particular and for the trade unions of the country in general.
I turn to page 5 of the script. This is amusing. It describes what was happening in a Yorkshire district. There is a description of a miner listening to a dance band. The miner and his wife are made to talk to each other, and the wife says to the miner,
I hope the Government will climb down. I don't want to he on strike pay again. Life's hard enough as it is.
The miner is made to reply,
Don't talk soft, lass. We need a fight to a finish this time. It's time we taught the bosses a real lesson.
These are men living on miserly wages, with trade union funds not enough to pay 10s. a week for two weeks! To describe a lock-out of the miners as a strike as if the miners were responsible and as if it were the miners who wanted to get the Government down, not the coal owners who wanted to beat the miners down and force down their standards of living, is monstrous.
Next, the narrator says, "The miners are out." He does not say that the miners are locked out but, "The miners are out." Why not "locked out"? Why was not that phrase used?—because they were locked out. The narrator says,
But the general strike did not start for another two days. Talks dragged on through Sunday and Monday. But it was too late for a settlement.
Then at the bottom of that page of the script, page six, there is obliterated

this reference to why it was too late to get a settlement:
The Editor of the Daily Mail at once rang Mr. Baldwin and told him what had happened, and he at once broke off talks with the trade unions. He said he would not talk with them whilst one of them was actually on strike. Soon all the big newspaper offices had to close down.
But that was cut out.
Who is the censor at the B.B.C. headquarters? Did they consult the Tory Central Office? Here was the answer to why the talks broke down.
On the following Wednesday in this House the late Mr. Lloyd George charged Mr. Baldwin with having unnecessarily broken off negotiations, and when a deputation went back to Downing Street after Mr. Baldwin's letter terminating the negotiations they were told by the servant that Mr. Baldwin had gone to bed and was not available for any further talks to avoid a general strike.
There it is. It was the Government who wanted a fight, the Government who acted at the behest of the coal owners. I have not time to deal with the rest of this script, this travesty of history, this poisoning of children's minds against the trade unions of this country.
Norman Mackenzie in his latest book said it was impossible for anyone to whitewash that horrible period known as "Baldwin's Britain." I remember it. I was on strike. I was victimised by the very people this B.B.C. script attempts to justify. Norman Mackenzie did not reckon with the B.B.C. They have poured the whitewash over the Baldwin Government and their relations with the miners of this country.
I do not place on the Assistant Postmaster-General any responsibility for all this. He has to give the reply which no doubt the B.B.C. has supplied to him. In this matter, if I may say so without presumption, he has my sympathy. However, I want to ask him some questions.
Why was it not made clear that it was the coal owners who were the aggressors? Why were the coal owners' demands falsified in this script? Why were the real miners' wages not disclosed Why was the non-recognition of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain not brought out as one of the coal owners' demands? Why was it


not brought out that the coal owners were demanding an extra hour on the shift, on the day's work, an hour which at that time was entirely illegal and prohibited by law? Why did the B.B.C. refuse to include in the script the fact that the bishops of organised religion in this country who pleaded in a statement for a settlement were under a threat by the gentleman who subsequently became the Prime Minister of this country and they refused to allow it to be made? Why were the facts favourable to the miners cut out in the script? Why was the opinion of Sir John Simon given so much prominence in the script that a general strike was illegal when, after the strike, every legal authority of any standing said that this opinion was quite wrong?
There is something seriously wrong with this section of the B.B.C.'s activities. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) has the same sort of complaint to make about the lesson which followed this one—

Mr. George Thomas: On 1931.

Mr. Ness Edwards: —about the 1931 crisis, which contained the same sort of bias and heavy loading against the Left as against the Right, with no objectivity at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley), who lived through this period with me, looking through this script, said, "I could not have been alive then, if it happened like that." He played as much part in the General Strike as I did in the miners' lockout. It does not look like history; it looks like propaganda. It does not look like education; it looks like fabrication. I am sorry indeed that the B.B.C. should fall from its very high standards to try to create a nation of little Tories by so-called lessons of this sort.

11.11 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): Nobody can accuse the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) of having failed to make his point with vehemence and nostalgic enthusiasm. It might help the House if I were to state, first of all, a broad principle affecting this matter which bears directly on what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying. The principle, as briefly as I can put it, is

that in matters of programme content, in matters of what the B.B.C. puts out over its sound radio and television circuits, it is to have, so far as it is possible for this House to give it, complete freedom to decide for itself. The Governors of the B.B.C. in the first place, and this House only later, if we were wildly offended, would have the right to examine objections of partiality on the part of the Authority.
The second thing which the House ought to bear in mind is that there is a clear injunction laid upon the Governors of the B.B.C. to seek to attain impartiality in the content of the programmes that they decide to put out. Here again, when allegations of a failure to observe this impartiality are made, the first line of responsibility is with the Governors of the B.B.C. to examine the charges and again, only if we are wildly or seriously offended in this House, is it our job to see where they are alleged to have gone wrong.
These two broad principles cover this programme, and since for the first time we learn tonight that other programmes in this series are concerned—

Mr. G. Thomas: rose—

Mr. Thompson: There are avenues open to hon. Members to make their views known on these things, and I know that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) is not reluctant to take them.

Mr. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?

Mr. Thompson: No, I want to be able to do justice to the right hon. Member for Caerphilly.
This series, then, is covered by these general principles. I am sure the House will agree that it is right that efforts should be made by an authority like the B.B.C. to put over school programmes. Secondly, I am sure it is right, subject to whatever checks and balances and considerations are appropriate in each case for the B.B.C. to use its resources to put over programmes dealing with modern historical events.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Hear, hear.

Mr. Thompson: I am quite sure that the House would agree, having accepted those two propositions, that it is right


for the B.B.C. to deal with events even though they may be modern enough still to contain the currents of modern controversy. Therefore, what the right hon. Member for Caerphilly has to do is to show that the B.B.C. has failed either in this specific case alone, or in others of the same series, to aim at—and he went much further than that—impartiality.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Objectivity.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: And accuracy.

Mr. Thompson: To aim at impartiality, objectivity and accuracy in the preparation of the script.
First of all, the B.B.C. is putting out a programme lasting 20 minutes, and that includes the opening and closing announcements, noises off and all the trimmings that make a programme a complete unity. Secondly, it is dealing with an audience of an age ranging from 13 to 15 years with a limited capacity for understanding the nuances of anything that may be said or written.
That is the market in which the B.B.C. is operating with these programmes. The right hon. Gentleman went much further and suggested that the B.B.C. failed to attain objectivity. He then dragged in the Conservative Central Office, and the only deduction we can draw is that he was casting an imputation on the B.B.C. of having deliberately sought to distort history— a much more serious charge than that of having failed to attain objectivity.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He has a copy of the script. The B.B.C. knows that it is within his power to ask for a copy of the script; it knows that its programmes will be listened to over a very wide range of the population, containing people of every conceivable shade of political opinion and every shade of experience in this very period with which it was dealing. Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously ask the House or his hon. Friends to believe that in these circumstances the B.B.C. was deliberately trying to distort history?

Mr. Ness Edwards: rose—

Mr. Thompson: The right hon. Gentleman had a very full opportunity—let us regard my question as rhetorical.

Mr. W. E. Padley: Monumental ignorance.

Mr. Thompson: Let us then deal with this question. The right hon. Gentleman went through the script and picked out one or two examples, saying that this bias ran right through the script. What was he really complaining about? Was he not really just looking for something on which he could hang the case? He complains about this being called a "dispute," and described it in somewhat extravagant words. But in other parts of his speech he referred with approval to the Annual Report of the Secretary for Mines, and I would draw his attention to the heading on page 8 of that Report, which sets out to deal with the dispute in the British coal mining industry in 1926, and which refers to it throughout as a dispute. If the right hon. Gentleman is really going to rest his case on that kind of point we will never get anywhere in understanding modern history, or, indeed, any other kind of history.
We then come to the detail of the programme itself. Was it really likely that an audience of children, aged 13 to 15, listening to a programme that is to last no more than 20 minutes, could be expected to understand the complicated wage structure of the industry. [Interruption.] Was that really so? I did my best, with a very marked measure of success, to avoid laughing while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, because I respect his feelings in this matter. He was good enough to suggest that it might be a good thing if I were to prepare myself with a book on the subject, on which I did not know as much as he did. I read the book, by Mr. Julian Symons, called "The General Strike", an authoritative account of what happened. This sentence occurs at the top of page 33, dealing with the work which the Samuel Commission was to perform:
Four wise men sit down to consider the working of an immensely complicated industry; an industry which has a whole terminology of its own; in which the wage structure is so complicated that days of explanation are required before it is understood…
And the passages in the script relating to the wages earned by the miners might have been taken from the pages of "The General Strike" by Julian Symons. I have just read the book. It is probably some little time since the right hon. Gentleman read it.
The B.B.C. does not put out a controversial programme, or one on a controversial subject of this kind, with its coat trailing and inviting it to be trodden on by those who look for flaws in the case. Mistakes—yes. I do not suppose for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman would claim that a mistake, even by the B.B.C., whose standards are so high, should be impossible. Reference to the words "years of subsidy" is a slip of the tongue or pen such as could happen to anyone. I hope the House will accept my assurance that it is so.

Mr. G. Thomas: It is a history lesson.

Mr. Thompson: The hon. Member has some experience in teaching, and I should have thought that he would, with the modesty that we all admire in him, have been the last person to claim that it was impossible for a teacher to make a mistake. The B.B.C. does not rely only on the spoken word that goes out over the radio. The radio programme is only part of the lesson, and the lesson itself is supported and aided by the documents to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, which do not fill in the background but are intended to guide the teacher of the class to seek the rest of the story and prepare to tell it properly.
So far as we can discover, the schools broadcasts are listened to by very large numbers of schools and are enthusiastically received with practically a complete absence of complaint on grounds of partiality. The debate tonight is almost the first example that is known to the B.B.C. of a charge of positive partiality being directed against it in a matter of this kind.
I very much hope that the House will allow me to conclude by saying that I hope the confidence of the Governors of the B.B.C. in putting out this kind of programme will not be in any way deterred or inhibited by the things which have been said tonight, and I hope they will accept the assurance, from one who has now gone into it with great care and at great length, that I am satisfied that they do their best.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-two minutes past Eleven o'clock.